Oh, So That's Why DOJ Isn't Going After Pro-Terrorism Agitators
The UN Endorses a Second Terrorist State for Iran
Jihad Joe
Biden Administration: 'Reasonable to Assess' That Israel Broke International Law With Gaza...
Israeli Ambassador Shreds the U.N. Charter in Powerful Speech Before Vote to Grant...
New Single Article of Impeachment Filed Against Biden
New Report Details How Dems Are Planning to Minimize Risk of Pro-Hamas Disruptions...
The Long Haul of Love
3,000 Fulton County Ballots Were Scanned Twice During the 2020 Election Recount
Joe Biden's Weapons 'Pause' Will Get More Israeli Soldiers, Civilians Killed
Left-Wing Mayor Hires Drag Queen to Spearhead 'Transgender Initiatives'
NewsNation Border Patrol Ride Along Sees Arrest of Illegal Immigrants in Illustration of...
One State Just Cut Off Funding for Planned Parenthood
Vulnerable Democratic Senators Refuse to Support Commonsense Pro-Life Bill
California Surf Competition Will Be Required to Allow Men to Compete Against Women
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