Opinion / Politics

Roberts Decision – Punts DACA to November 2020

robertsOn June 18, the Supreme Court – in a 5-4 decision – decided to become political, while stating that their intent is not to be political.  The split decision, written by Justice Roberts, blocked President Trump’s decision to reverse President Obama’s earlier decision not to enforce US immigration laws.  In effect, the Court let the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program stand.   But this is not the end of the debate.  It just punts everything to November 2020.

Here is what happened and why this discussion is not over.  In short, the Supreme Court had an easy decision to make.  Obama had scuttled US law with an executive order allowing children brought to the US by illegal alien parents to stay.  Trump reversed that decision, and the Court should have said – yes, US immigration laws are enforceable, Trump is right, DACA is done.

The reason this was such an easy call is that Obama had stopped enforcing the law by executive order.  Moreover, Obama had allowed parents of illegal DACA children to stay, under a program he called DAPA.  They could not be deported and could work and get all federal benefits.

In June 2016, the Supreme Court spilt 4-4 – without Justice Scalia’s vote – reviewing a lower court ruling that found Obama’s DAPA program illegal.  In effect, the Supreme Court killed DAPA, and required US immigration laws be enforced.  That was before Trump got elected.

When Trump became president, he simply completed the process, reversing Obama’s executive order that allowed DACA – even as he offered to work with Congress on a law to fix the problem.  When agreement could not be found, he ended DACA and sought to enforce US law.

Trump’s reversal of DACA and enforcement of US law got challenged, of course.  It ended up at the Supreme Court.  The Roberts ruling – rather transparently – punted the whole question back to the Trump Administration, or Congress, or – in truth – to the 2020 election.

Here is how.  Too cute by half, Roberts called Trump’s Department of Homeland Security “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), since the Department’s reasoning was not the way Roberts would have done it.  It did not hit all the wickets, the way Roberts saw it, before reversing an executive order that hit no wickets.

Interestingly, Roberts’ opinion does backflips to conclude two Secretaries of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice got it all wrong, did not reason as he would have to why the law should be enforced.  Accordingly, Roberts said Trump’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”

In short, Trump did not sufficiently explain how “equities” of all parties – American citizens and those who broke the law with their children – got balanced.  Instead, Roberts came down on the side of the 9th Circuit, finding Trump had not complied with the APA when reversing Obama’s decision not to enforce US law.

If this sounds like a legal farce, sadly it looks like one.  The liberal majority, again led by Roberts, said “the rescission was inadequately explained,” and so whole idea of ending DACA must be sent back – or remanded – to the Administration to rethink.  In the meantime, the “700,000 DACA recipients may … work” and remain “eligible” for federal benefits.

Is this absurd?  On the law, as carefully and cogently explained in a dissent written by Justice Kavanaugh, yes.  Will it stand?  That is the big question.  The answer would initially depend on how well Trump’s team “reasons” to enforcing US immigration law, and reversing Obama’s non-enforcement of the law, non-deportations, and giveaway of benefits.

But reality is also at work – and Roberts, together with the liberal wing of the Court, knows it.  In effect, Trump’s senior leadership – which tried to create a path to citizenship with Congress for the DACA group – will again explain how they weighed equites, arriving at their decision.  They will re-run all the APA wickets, and they will end the program.

That will be challenged in court. Depending on what happens, a conflict between circuits may again put the case before the Supreme Court – but NOT until after November 2020, or likely after January 2021, that is, until Trump is either reelected – or a Democrat takes the White House, likely readopting the Obama-Biden “let them all in” policy.

So, you see where this Supreme Court ruling leaves us?  It leaves us forced – again – to put all chips on one square, November 2020’s presidential election.  The real decision on DACA is not going to be made by the Supreme Court – but by voters in November.  If Trump wins, DACA goes, or is resolved away by compromise. If Biden wins, DACA – and likely DAPA – roar back.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Robert B. Charles
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul W
1 month ago

robert’s “decision” not only defies the law and the duties of a SCOTUS justice, it defies logic and common sense. I’m starting to consider the rumors that are floating about, that he is compromised. Even if he isn’t, he was NEVER a Constitutionalist. This is by no means the first time that he has exceeded his purview.

David Sigwart
1 month ago

In doing this the supreme court has just pissed in the face of all legal immigrants and all american citizens. You all talk about term limits on politicians. Why has there not been term limits on all judges in the supreme court. Simple 8 years is the time any judge on any court can sit. During that time if any judge decides to write law or influence laws in any respect they are removed asap. Their job is to apply the laws as written not as they desire or have been paid to rule on. And all judges pay will… Read more »

1 month ago

Of course it’s political. I would think that the reversal of a corrupt obama order would be an easy decision

1 month ago

Roberts has been compromised. This is his 2nd bad call. He’s the reason that “obamanation care” is still around. That sack of crap needs to be held accountable for his decision. No need to remind you that he was the pick of GWB for the SCOTUS position. The bush family are deep state maggots.

1 month ago

In short, I don’t want any of my G**D*** money spent on ILLEGALS!

Wayne Peterkin
1 month ago

Forget DACA for a moment and just consider the underlying ideology of the court’s decision. First, an Executive Order is not law and never has been. Laws must originate in the Legislative Branch, be passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by the Executive Branch. Only then can the Judicial Branch consider constitutionality and for an EO they are limited to ruling an EO cannot be enforced if unconstitutional. An EO is little more than the whim and desire of the Executive, but it is not law. Since DACA as the example here was an Obama EO,… Read more »

David Spade
1 month ago

Legislating from the bench….the liberals on the Supreme Court are noted for doing just that. The immigration laws on the books should be enforced. Mr. Trump has offered up alternatives to allowing the young people to gain legal citizenship, but the socialists (i.e. Democrats) in Congress don’t want to negotiate. And so it goes….let’s not do anything to protect American interests. But we can vote for conservative values in November, and that should be a priority for all Americans.

Sally Duncan
1 month ago

This is why I dislike the judges of the supreme court being a lifetime appointment. There’s always one in a crowd that messes up the works.

dino deplorable
1 month ago

If they came here and didn’t do it legally they broke our laws and they are criminals and if not prosecuted its a slap in the face of the people that did it the right way.Thats nothing new. In this day and age we have many criminals that aren’t prosecuted and they are not all politicians.

1 month ago

Only thing that needs to be outed is Roberts up Ginsberg ass!

1 month ago

Isn’t it amazing how the Supreme Court can change the law of the land as passed by the legislature. DACA is plainly unConstitutional, yet the SC says Trump can’t stop Obama’s illegal action. Apparently the law is the las UNLESS the Supreme Court decides it isn’t a law!

1 month ago

Looks to me like Roberts was paid off by the Dem’s. I can only speak for myself, but I’m tired of paying for all the illegals. It’s bad enough we have to pay the way for all of the low life lazy socialist among us.

1 month ago

So Justice Roberts has sold out. I wonder what was so great that he would sell his soul and reject everything he used to stand for. More and more of this is happening to staunch conservatives. One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. May God grab hold of Justice Roberts and show him the error of his way.

1 month ago

Robert’s has proven to be a major failure. He’s so insulated in DC that he actually believes he’s maintaining the dignity of the court, but he’s actually helping liberals destroy the court!

1 month ago

It appears that Democrats always seem to want to reward illegal behavior. Why are they so dead set against those that follow our laws?

Billy a
1 month ago

Roberts is suppose to “hold to the law of the land” he is suppose to be a judge accordingly not a political pawn for any party! Who knows there just might be corruption in the Supreme Court … imagine that.

Patriot Will
1 month ago

Sadly, Roberts has once again slowed down the legal process of enforcing laws. Why he would do such a thing is open for debate, but what ever the debate, the ultimate ruling should not be good for the open border Democrats. However, if President Trump loses the election, all bets are off. One can’t help but wonder if Roberts is compromised …

Bill Brown
1 month ago

Impeach John Roberts!!!!!

John A Bird
1 month ago

We are either a nation of laws or we’re not. Roberts among others have decided that our laws no longer matter and should be immediately dismissed from the Supreme Court!

Patrick Jennings
1 month ago

Write the law such that the children who have come here as infants or young children can remain. The new law should be written eliminating future coming.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x