10

I would understand the law or new executive order being unconstitutional and struck down by courts, but here he have a situation where Trump is trying to revert the policy to state that it was before 2012 without changing any laws.

context: judges blocked Trump's repeal of DACA

5

The judge didn't block the repeal:

US district judge William Alsup rules the Daca program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision unfolds.

(Emphasis mine.) Further:

The Trump administration could appeal the ruling, which could then be appealed to the US supreme court.

It makes sense because several states, organisations and individuals challenged the repeal of DACA in lawsuits. If there's a risk that Trump's administration is overturned (remember the Muslim ban?) it's more practical to postpone the DACA repeal's application until the litigation over it ends.

  • 1
    This answer is good, but it could be even better if it addressed what grounds the lawsuits against ending DACA are based on (or linked to somewhere else for that information). The specific case you linked to of "Lets not do anything that can't be undone until we know the lawuits' results" is important and addressed the event that prompted the question, but it doesn't address the bigger question - this exact same question could be asked in 6 months and mean something very different when a Judge rules on one of those lawsuits. – Bobson Jan 15 '18 at 17:29
  • @Bobson: I've sincerely no idea what the basis was of challenging the repeal, but feel free to edit it in. – Denis de Bernardy Jan 15 '18 at 19:45
  • I don't know the answer either. I've asked politics.stackexchange.com/q/27434/2130 to get an answer. – Bobson Jan 15 '18 at 22:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .