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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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
Verses regents of the university of california and the related cases. General francisco . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, in 2017 the fifth circuit held the dapa and the expansion of daca were unlawful, a judge in this court affirmed and in the decisions the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to retain the daca policy based on its belief that the policy was illegal, its serious doubts about its illegality and its general opposition to broad, nonenforcement policies. That decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, its not subject to judicial review. The rescission simply ended a previous nonenforcement policy whereby the department agreed to not enforce the ina against hundreds of thousands of illegal ail epps, but the decision whether or not to enforce the law is committed to the agencys unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing in the ina requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency
Amb. Brownback the Supreme Court just wrapped up host we have briand goron and john malcolm here. Thank you for being in this morning. Brianne andt with ask you what is your take on the decisions that came down in the recent term . Guest i think this was a deeply different disappointing decision from the court because the chief justice threw up their hands and acknowledged that extreme partisan gerrymanders are inconsistent with what quit to do anything about them. Justice kagan got it right in her decision when she recognized , when do the courts can do things when can the courts do things . Otherwhat was the decision last week you thought was important . Case, it the sentence challenged the Trump Administrations decision to add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 census. The chief justice got right on this one. I agree with some of his legal reasoning, but he was right to reject the effort to add this question to the census. As he said, the secretary of was contextualon and this would