Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l
Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the
Argument, which took place in november. Argument first this morning in case 18 587, the department of Homeland Security the university of california and the related cases. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, in 20, the dr. Ircuit held that daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a re cess for the committee at anytime. Entitled bureaucratic overreach for Consumer Protection. Examining the cfpbs latest action to restrict composition in the payments. Without objection all members have five legislative days to submit extraneous materials for inclusion in the record. I want to recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement. Todays hearing, bureaucratic overreach or Consumer Protection, examining the cfpbs latest action to restrict competition in payments in my view is critical to talk about this large participants in the general use of Digital Consumer payment applications market. This is the sixth lpr that the cfpb has initiated. And putting aside the egregiously period which frustrates both members of this committee, the deeply flawed cost benefit analysis which are both have become hallmarks of this administration, i find the su
Cspan is your unfiltered view of governnt funded by these Television Companies and more, including mediaome. At media, we believe that whether you ver here, or in the little of anywhere, you should have access to fast reliable internet. Thats why were leadinghe way taking you to 10 g. Mediacom supports he spent as a Public Service along with these other Television Providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. Up next, financial and Technology Stakeholders share their thoughts on the proposed rule to regulate payment apps and digital wallets. Backers say it is necessary to protect consumers, while opponents say the rule is too broad and could limit competition. The houseo hours. [indiscernible conversation] the committee on digital access, Technology Without objection, the chair is authorized to clear a recess at any time. This hearing isâ– nn1 titled bureaucratic overreach or Consumer Protection, examining the latest action to restrict competition in r protection, examining the c