7

This question asks why Trump would be blocked from ending DACA, and the answer was that he wasn't - it was just suspended until all ongoing lawsuits against Trump's action were resolved, presumably to preserve the status quo and avoid any unreversible actions. However, it doesn't address why there are lawsuits against ending DACA in the first place.

On what grounds is the administration being sued to prevent DACA from being ended? What justification do people provide to prevent an executive order from undoing an executive order?

| improve this question | |
3

Well, from the lawsuit, these are some of the argued grounds (formatting added, along with expanding a few acronyms):

The Trump Administration's elimination of DACA was unlawful on a number of grounds.

  • First, the DACA Rescission Memorandum violates the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by substantially altering Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) prior assurances regarding the use of information contained in DACA applications; Defendants should be equitably estopped from acting contrary to these assurances.
  • Second, Office of Homeland Security (OHS) promulgated this rule without providing notice or the opportunity to comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), thereby depriving Plaintiff States of the opportunity to present important evidence to OHS about the overwhelming success of the DACA program in Plaintiff States as part of the rulemaking process.
  • Third, OHS violated the substantive requirements of the APA by proffering a legally insufficient justification for rescinding DACA, obscuring the true policy rationale for this substantial change, and otherwise violating independent constitutional and statutory provisions.
  • Fourth, federal law does not permit this substantive change in OHS policy to be made without an analysis of the negative impact of rescinding DACA on small businesses, non-profits, and local government entities, including those in Plaintiff States.
  • Finally, Defendants have discriminated against this class of young immigrants in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment by depriving them of their interests in pursuing a livelihood and furthering their education. These interests are substantial, and Defendants deprived DACA grantees of them without a sufficient justification.
| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    So the claim here is not so much that Trump can't direct the OHS to do this, as that the way it was done was too rushed, not sufficiently justified, and may violate grantees' right to due process? – Bobson Jan 15 '18 at 22:52
  • 2
    If this lawsuit is won, it can then be argued that a President, any President, including Trump, can make law unilaterally without congress. – Frank Cedeno Jan 16 '18 at 14:02
  • 6
    @FrankCedeno I'm not sure how you get that from this situation. Obama used a function of the executive branch to delay enforcing laws. Trump used a function of the executive branch to no longer delay enforcing the laws. No laws were created, no laws were undone. It's kind of an unavoidable effect of living unlawfully in the country that one's continued presence is at the mercy of enforcement of the laws being violated, or those laws being changed (and it being decided that past violations are not grandfathered in as still extant violations). – Jack Of All Trades 234 Jan 16 '18 at 15:39
  • 1
    @FrankCedeno Was that a new made law or was it an executive order? My understanding is that it was an executive order. If this lawsuit fails then it means that one party is allowed make laws by executive order but the other party isn't allowed to repeal them by executive order. – Readin Jan 20 '18 at 18:24
  • 4
    @Acccumulation, a new qualification that did not exist on an existing law IS a new law. And by the way, what existing law allows undocumented aliens to remain, if they are undocumented? Undocumented includes not requesting asylum. The Constitution is very clear on the role of the President so that Executive orders are for Enforcing existing law, The Judiciary has the job of interpreting laws, not the President. This argument is for academic purposes only, in reality, I know that no matter what happens, it is bad news. – Frank Cedeno Jan 23 '18 at 17:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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