Based on the Preliminary Info About the Trump Trial Jurors, the Rigged Narrative...
New NPR CEO's Take on the First Amendment Is What You'd Expect
There Are School Walkouts Happening Over Furries. Please Shoot Me Into the Sun.
Is This What an 'Impartial' Jury Looks Like?
'See You in Court': Biden Policy Nuking Title IX Draws Legal Challenge From...
Trump Campaign, RNC Unveil Massive Election Integrity Program
Another Day, Another Troubling Air Travel Story
Reporter to KJP: Can We See the 'Cannibal' Tab in Your Book?
US Vetoes UN Resolution on Palestinian Membership
Did This Factor Into Gallagher's Early Resignation Decision?
Poll Shows How 'Ticked-Off Voters' Are 'Both an Opportunity and a Challenge for...
Did Biden Actually Have a Point With His Slip-Up on 'Freedom Over Democracy'?
Here's Why a National Guardsmen Shot an Illegal Alien
Who's Ahead? New Barrage of 2024 Polling Sheds Light on Presidential, Senate Races
We've Found the Most Insane Transgender Criminal Case Yet
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