Herr Platner Is Taking Democrat Credibility Down With Him
The US Has to Act Now to Ensure We Dominate the Future of...
The Scott Pelley Saga Is Over at CBS News, but Not the Melodramatics...
Nicole Parker’s 'The Two FBIs' and the Battle for the Bureau’s Soul
You Just Thought You Hated HOAs Before
Our Enemies Lie
TDS Watch: The 'Convicted Felon' Argument
Will Single-Payer Healthcare Champions Ever Offer Something Credible?
Beaufort, the Tehran Grand Bazaar, and Boots on the Ground in Lebanon
Putting Real Pride Into Pride Month
The Looming Fight Over Intellectual Diversity – Restoring the Academy’s Reason for Being
Michigan Rapper Sentenced to 10 Years for $63M Mail Theft Scheme
Two Foreign NIH Researchers Charged With Smuggling Monkeypox Into U.S.
USDA Finds $13.3 Million in Potential Ohio SNAP Fraud
'Reconciliation 3.0' Is Almost Here – And It Might Include the SAVE America Act
Tipsheet

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

'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