Biden-Appointed Judge Issues Insane Ruling on How ICE Should Handle Deranged MN Protesters
There Is No Law in the Jungle—or in American Cities, Either, Thanks to...
How China Sold America the Wind Turbine Scam
Food Wars
It’s Not a Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood: Criminal Monsters of Minneapolis
Israel’s October 7 Wartime Heroes, Both Celebrated and Unsung
The Highs and Lows of Nepalese-Israeli Relations
Industrial-Scale Fraud: How Government Spending Became a Cash Machine for Criminals
The World Prosperity Forum vs. World Economic Forum
Trump’s Fix for Breaking Healthcare’s Black Box
Democrats: All Opposition, No Positions
Wars Are Won by Defending Home First
10 Charged in Louisville–Detroit Drug Trafficking Conspiracy, Feds Say
Three Men Sentenced in Multi-State ATM Burglary Scheme
Treasury Slams 21 People, Groups With Sanctions for Allegedly Helping Terror Group
Tipsheet

'Unlawful from its Inception': Justice Thomas Rips DACA Decision

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

In 2017, President Trump cancelled his predecessor's order to allow illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before age 16 to apply for protection from deportation. On Thursday, SCOTUS ruled that Trump's move was was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the DACA program would be upheld. Chief Justice Roberts, always a swing vote, swung in the direction of the court's four liberal justices. In their ruling, the justices note that they did not rule on the merits of the case, but on the procedure the Trump administration used to try and rescind DACA.

Advertisement

In the primary dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned why his colleagues were way off base. In the first place, he notes, Obama's DACA program was unconstitutional.

"DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going  through the requisite rulemaking process," Thomas argues. "As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception."

Yet, "under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda."

"Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision," he later adds.

Advertisement

At issue here is whether emotion has replaced the law. Liberal lawmakers argue it's inhumane to send DREAMers away, especially since for some of them the U.S. is the only home they've ever known and they were brought here through no fault of their own. But for conservatives, it's a matter of maintaining law and order. And Justice Thomas forcefully communicated the latter sentiment.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement