Hacker News Reader

> This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare.

It didn't rule that the current administration can't undo the program, it ruled that the administration has to properly justify that decision, and not doing so is unlawful.

At no point did it rule on DACA itself, or prevent the administration from providing actual, motivated and legal reasoning for rescinding the program.

Also

> This was his dissent on DACA.

Which corresponds to the majority ruling on this case, yet I can't help but notice Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in the majority, not Thomas.

However DACA itself is unlawful in that it is an Executive Order undermining Federal immigration law, so the administration's rescinding it on the basis of its unlawfulness should be sufficient enough justification. The problem is that the Court's ruling indicates that an EO which subverts existing law cannot be overturned by subsequent administrations simply on the basis of its illegality. Justice Thomas' dissent says exactly this.

That's incredibly problematic. According to the recent ruling therefore, a President has the power to issue and EO which prevents the enforcement of certain laws.

I urge you to read the SCOTUS opinion itself, and not just the rhetoric you may have heard in the media about the opinion. Because this:

> According to the recent ruling therefore, a President has the power to issue and EO which prevents the enforcement of certain laws

is flatly untrue.

> Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program?

The court rules that the current administration can't undo it simply by waking up one morning and say "I wish that it be done;" it actually has to go through a process to explain why it is taking the decision it is, which is the same process it had to do to enact the program in the first place.

What?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/506018-trump-exp...

It's bizarre to have someone quote a judge's dissenting opinion but not read the main gist of the actual verdict.

"The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch."

In this case, that's exactly what the majority concluded. In layman's terms, this is a decision that says, "We aren't doing a thing. Congress made a promise. If you want to rescind it, go talk to congress, not us."

Congress didn't make DACA. Obama ordered it by executive memorandum, after a similar Congressional bill, the DREAM Act, failed in Congress.

> Congress made a promise

When exactly did that happen?

Congress created the reservation situation in Oklahoma many, many, many years ago. Not the Supreme Court.

If respondents want to undo that promise, they need to take the matter up with congress. That's what the court is saying. You can't short circuit the constitutional order. The court is right to drop this right back in the lap of congress.

GP wasn't talking about the Oklahoma decision, they were talking about DACA.

No. GP was giving an opinion about DACA in the context of the discussion of the article, and the person you responded to commented within that frame.

The more I learn about Justice Thomas, the more I like him.

He walks a difficult path well.