The one court in America where the law actually matters?
It’s become a sadly predictable spectacle: President Trump issues an executive order that’s fully within his authority, but is deeply disliked by liberals. Liberals run to court, seeking an Obama-, Clinton- or Carter-appointed federal judge who is willing to ignore the limits of his or her own authority and issue an order against the Trump action.
The result is often months of legal positioning between the Justice Department and the plaintiffs, all just to establish that the president of the United States is legally permitted to govern, and that once again, the 9th Circuit has no clue what they are doing.
This is good news though, a helpful sign that the Supreme Court will not give unelected judges carte blanche to hamstring the federal government’s legitimate efforts to enforce immigration law restrictions, consistent with the current statutory law.
So sorry liberals… The law is the law. Break it, and there are consequences.
The good news is that SCOTUS is consistently coming down on the side of the law since Obama left office.
Or at least they’re ruling that lower courts can’t issue orders striking down legal presidential orders just because they don’t like the order or don’t like the president.
And the Supremes did it again, this time telling the ultraliberal Ninth Circuit to get out of the way and stop trying to save Barack Obama’s ill-conceived DACA program protecting illegals who arrived here as children as the Daily Signal explains:
DACA provided a period of deferred action (a promise that the alien would not be deported) as well as access to certain government benefits (including work authorizations, Medicare, Social Security, and the earned income tax credit). The period of deferred action was initially for two years, but that period was extended to three years by a second DHS memorandum on Nov. 14, 2014.
The Trump administration took a different approach. On Sept. 5, then-acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke issued a new memorandum terminating the DACA program and all benefits provided under it effective March 18, 2018, unless President Donald Trump provides another extension of the program or Congress passes a bill addressing the issue.
The acting secretary stated that her determination was based in part on the attorney general’s conclusion that DACA was unlawful and likely would be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation.
Shortly thereafter, the administration found itself in a legal battle. Five related lawsuits challenging the acting secretary’s Sept. 5 determination were filed in a federal district lower court in California. The suits argued that the determination violated the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs the way in which federal administrative agencies may propose and establish regulations), and denied affected aliens due process and equal protection under the law.
On Oct. 17, the district court issued an order accepting plaintiffs’ contention that the 256-page record DHS used to support its Sept. 5 determination was “incomplete.” In so doing, the court imposed an enormous burden on the government, ordering it to turn over all “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials” that fell into several broad categories.
The Justice Department unsuccessfully challenged this ruling before the largely liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In its short unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court held that, before imposing its heavy-handed documentary request, the district court first should have ruled on the government’s two “serious” threshold arguments—that the decision to terminate DACA was unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it was “committed to agency discretion,” and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived the lower court of jurisdiction.
This is not a final ruling on the case, and the Supremes could theoretically come back later and rule in favor of the plaintiffs. But the merits of the case and the SCOTUS pattern on such cases to date suggests this is unlikely.
In order to rule against the Trump Administration on this, the Court would have to find that President Trump lacks the authority to simply enforce the law as written. It would further have to find that an executive order of one president directing the bureaucracy not to enforce statutory law trumps the statute itself.
In other words, the Supremes would have to rule that once a president decides to refuse enforcement of an existing law, no future president can come back and resume enforcement of that law. The Supreme Court is not going to do that.
Mr Americana, Overpasses News Desk
December 28th, 2017
Tell us what you think in comments below!