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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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
You can vote for the one you want to hurt the most. Go ahead and start asking the questions. In the in person inperson event. The audience members we welcome you tonight some of you are in your pajamas and your work a close. Onto the main event. With her import no book. Professor nyu school of loss shows that the immigration sea and is only the latest if most extreme iteration of the idea of the criminal alien. The immigration reporter the former senior correspondent. Thank you. Good evening to everyone who is out there. I wanted to understand i understand this is a weird situation obviously for you not be down here in dc. And working on a book we had been talking over the last few things. What you and your colleagues had been working on right now is a logical extension in the work that weve been doing. Still much of your book in one of the things i appreciate about it. Can you maybe talk through what youre working on right now from the perspective of the people you are trying to reach
Starts right now. Today was the deadline for Donald Trumps legal team to file their brief with the senate for trumps upcoming Impeachment Trial. And it looks like trumps lawyers will be arguing that the trial is unconstitutional because trump is no longer president. Im going to use this. Im going to use this next time a cop pulls me over. Im going to be like, well, im no longer speeding. I was. I was. Im not now. Therefore this ticket is unconstitutional. Good morning. And welcome to morning joe. It is wednesday, february 3rd, along with joe, will li and me, we have White House Reporter for the Associated Press, jonathan lemire, former u. S. Senator now an nbc news and msnbc political analyst Claire Mccaskill and politics and Journalism Professor at Morgan State University and msnbc political contributor Jason Johnson is with us. So Donald Trumps second Impeachment Trial kicks off next week. And according to the case against him, the former president s role in the capitol hill riot is,