I often say my outrage meter is broken. I tend not to get worked up about things like where Keurig advertises and tweets on the President's timeline. But this morning my outrage meter hit eleventy. Judicial activism will do it every time.
A U.S. judge in San Francisco temporarily barred President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday from ending a program shielding young people brought to the United States illegally by their parents from deportation.
Under the ruling, the Administration is not obligated to review new DACA applications but it required to review current applicants for renewal. His ruling is based on his assertion that he believes the Plaintiff's will be successful in arguing that the government's decision to end the program was arbitrary. Apparently Judge Alsup's crystal ball was fully functional before announcing his ruling. Essentially, the program must remain in place as the other litigation is resolved.
I am not a lawyer. But best I can tell from reading the opinion the decision:
- Even though the original DHS memo establishing DACA procedures was never subject to notice and comment, rescinding it somehow is under the Administrative Procedure Act
- States even though the Supreme Court has ruled 'no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of an alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter", that ruling doesn't apply in this case.
- Reinforced the standing of incidental plaintiffs who may employ or collect taxes from DACA recipients such as universities and municipalities
- Imposes a nationwide injunction on ending the DACA program for current participants requiring the government to process renewal applications
The mental gymnastics I had to do to follow the logic being used in this opinion left my cerebral cortex in the shape of a pretzel. Bottom line it appears the decision is asserting that the obligation of the Trump administration in rescission of DACA is greater than that of the Obama administration in implementation. This is absurd and it appears the judge relies on a tweet from President Trump at the time of the rescission to assert the DHS can not end the program. A tweet. There is no disguising the activism in the text decision as written with the glowing language regarding the program and recipients throughout the text.
I am not heartless and honestly was very hopeful that much needed reforms to our immigration system and border security apparatus could be negotiated in exchange for dealing with the precarious status DACA recipients find themselves in. When your negotiating partner is focused on ONE thing, you can exact some disproportionate give and take. I learned that in Negotiation Skills 101 and have used it professionally for years.
After this morning I honestly no longer care. Spare me the narrative that all of the DACA recipients are upstanding members of society. We now know the previous administration violated their own administrative procedures to expedite approval for DACA recipients. Required background checks were "lean and lite" and in some cases not conducted at all. This is evident in the annual numbers of DACA recipients who have their status pulled for criminal and gang activity. It has happened every year since implementation and the number of those removed from the program is growing.
The Democrats have essentially gotten what they want through judicial fiat. The program in its current form will be continued for enrolled participants with the only doubt surrounding those whose status has already lapsed. The Dems incentive to negotiate is reduced for now, given this decision will take time to work its way through the appeals process. Let the party and their progressive allies who engage in judicial forum shopping to achieve their political ends hitch their wagon to continued success in the courts. The GOP should focus on the immigration and border security items they can accomplish in the budgetary process and sit on their wayward members in the Senate to get them done.
Friends, tyranny is not a tweet from the President insulting Jim Acosta. It is not Congress repealing the Individual Mandate. What tyranny looks like is a judge in a black robe who dismisses the separation of powers and uses the bench to achieve a political aim.