Skip to comments.US appeals court rules against Trump over DACA cancellation
Posted on 11/08/2018 7:19:06 PM PST by bitt
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that President Trumps decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is likely unlawful.
The decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocks Trump from terminating DACA protections for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, upholding a lower courts decision.
The ruling comes in response to a challenge from several individual DACA recipients; the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota; and the University of California regents.
The court said it has concluded that the acting secretary of Homeland Security was wrong to conclude that the policy was illegal and therefore not subject to the courts review.
The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose province and duty it is to say what the law is, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said.
Trump moved to rescind DACA within his first months in office. The decision has faced a number of legal challenges and will now likely head to the Supreme Court.
Earlier this week, Trump asked the Supreme Court to preemptively rule on the Obama-era program before appeals courts could rule.
The courts of appeal for the 2nd and District of Columbia circuits also have lower-court rulings before them.
Arrest these judges
What a joke - how in any twisted amount of logic is the President of the United States rescinding an Executive Order "unlawful"? There isn't a LAW at all!
A sitting president can rescind a former president¨s order. What´s so hard about that. Oh yeah some snowflakes wittle feelings are going to get hurt. So give them some crayons.
I haven’t even read the article yet, and I’m sure it’s the 9th circuit.
DACA was illegal and unconstitutional.
These F’in clowns need to be held in rebellion against the Constitution.
8USC 1182(f) and 1185(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with ample power to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.
If it was created by EO, it can be rescinded by EO.
Barky's EO supersede the constitution.
Trump's EO are unconstitutional because racism.
Send EVERY illegal back their home counties. No ‘court’ can stop us on that...
Well, the appeals court says otherwise and is effectively rewriting the law.
If SCOTUS doesn’t correct this, we’re seriously #’d.
Thanks for that info, Windy.
A disturbing ruling by the appeals court.
I know, then they would agree with him. In case you haven't noticed we are#'d as you say.
It's only disturbing in the sense that the Ninth Circuit is defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Hawaii vs Trump.
I only posted a snippet of the full ruling. The high court ruled that the President's powers over matters of immigration are nearly absolute, as stated in statute law and the Constitution.
The judges on the Ninth Circuit are completely aware of this, but have chosen to buck the high court anyway. There's no question that their ruling will be thrown out with prejudice, but Congress truly needs to intervene here. Impeachments are in order, and perhaps, even splitting the court into two or three smaller jurisdictions.
It's out of control.
>> the Ninth Circuit is defying the Supreme Court’s ruling
A culture of capricious defiance.
Yes, the court requires a correction. Hopefully, we’ll have a solid on the Senate, and make that happen.
Do it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.