Issues, Politics

Federal Court Orders White House to Reinstate DACA

The fight over so-called DREAMers and Obama’s DACA amnesty program just escalated to DEFCON 3 this week.

A liberal federal judge in New York issued an order to the White House to reinstate the DACA program after concluding that, though the President the right to end the program, he didn’t give a good enough reason for it.

Oddly enough, the judge cited Trump’s own tweets as proof that he could ‘revisit’ the issue whenever he wants as proof that ending the program was merely a whim.

The problem, of course, is that the program was unconstitutional to begin with.

Not that that ever stopped Obama.

Apparently the judge didn’t bother reviewing the Constitution while he was reading Trump’s tweets. Expect AG Sessions to appeal the decision swiftly.

Here’s more from Washington Times…

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

A federal judge in New York ruled Tuesday that the government must restart the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals deportation amnesty, adding more weight to the legal case against President Trump’s phaseout of the program just as Congress is debating the fate of “Dreamers” on Capitol Hill.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis said the administration does have the power to revoke DACA, but it must give a sound reason for doing so — and the Homeland Security Department’s September 2017 rationale fell far short of what is required in that regard.

He even used Mr. Trump’s own tweets as evidence that the DACA program was ended precipitously, pointing to President Trump’s claims that he could “revisit this issue” as proof the program could have been continued.

Judge Garaufis is the second federal judge to rule Mr. Trump’s aides bungled the phaseout, following a case in a federal court in California.

“The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so,” wrote Judge Garaufis, a Clinton appointee to the court in New York. “Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so.”

You Might Also Like