BREAKING: SCOTUS reinstates remain in Mexico policy

[I’m not Stu]

This will go to the 5th Circuit and maybe SCOTUS. 5-4 (Roberts the dissenting conservative) against Biden at SCOTUS?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I thought this was going to be a procedural issue and that the rescinding was arbitrary and capricious but…it’s not?

[I’m not Stu]

The judge wants Trump's policy to be permanent.

[I’m not Stu]

The Fifth Circuit orders it reinstated.

[sguberman]

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1428921548908351490

[politicallefty]

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1428921548908351490

As I mentioned in another topic, individual Justices really tend to not act on their own as Circuit Justices. They really do try to consider the issue and the views of the entire Court.

On the other hand, Justice Alito is a very strong proponent of executive powers. That might even be a stronger position for him than pure and basic partisanship.

[sguberman]

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1428921548908351490

As I mentioned in another topic, individual Justices really tend to not act on their own as Circuit Justices. They really do try to consider the issue and the views of the entire Court.

On the other hand, Justice Alito is a very strong proponent of executive powers. That might even be a stronger position for him than pure and basic partisanship.

Didn't he only partially dissent in Arizona V. United States as well?

[I’m not Stu]

Alito put it up for a vote. The current stay didn’t completely turn away the request for reinstatement.

[I’m not Stu]

All three liberals dissent. I don’t know if the vote was 6-3 or 5-4.

[Blue3]

Does the administration have to do some extra paperwork to get this changed?

Or it it some new permanent interpretation of federal law?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I misread this as "SCOTUS reinstates Mexico City Policy" and really got my hopes up for a second.

[I’m not Stu]

Does the administration have to do some extra paperwork to get this changed?

Or it it some new permanent interpretation of federal law?

It’s probably some new permanent interpretation of federal law.

[muon2]

This is from SCOTUSblog:

In a brief unsigned order issued shortly before 8 p.m. on Tuesday night, the court explained that the Biden administration was not likely to succeed – one of the criteria for obtaining this kind of request for emergency relief – in showing that its decision to end the policy was not “arbitrary and capricious” – that is, reasonable and reasonably explained. The order cited the court’s 2020 ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era policy that protected people who were brought as children to the U.S. without authorization. In Regents, the court held that the Trump administration had not properly explained its decision to end DACA.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This new convention that the Roberts Court is developing that Presidents have to have a "good enough" reason for reversing their predecessors' executive orders further erodes the distinction between EOs and laws and is thus very dangerous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is a textbook "the Court has made its decision, now let it enforce it." type ruling.

[brucejoel99]

This new convention that the Roberts Court is developing that Presidents have to have a "good enough" reason for reversing their predecessors' executive orders further erodes the distinction between EOs and laws and is thus very dangerous.

This doesn't concern an executive order. Just as DHS v. Regents didn't, this didn't either. New executive orders that are just that can overturn previous executive orders that were just that & - barring an extreme precedential overturn that's not happening under a Court that Roberts/Kavanaugh control, let alone really any Court, for that matter - that'll always be the case. However, what this case legally concerned, like DHS v. Regents before it did, was an agency action (both cases concerned DHS memoranda), & as much as the outcome of a particular case concerning agency action can suck (i.e., this refusal on SCOTUS' part to issue a stay) or not suck (i.e., SCOTUS' ruling that the attempted rescission of DACA didn't comply with the APA) depending on a particular policy in question that an administration sought to issue an agency action without complying with the APA in regards to, agency actions need to comply with the APA if the law is to mean anything.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Can anyone who doesn't write like an aspiring lawyer decode the above?

With a little (or rather a lot of) patience. It could be condensed into one sentence, but I do suspect it's done like that on purpose...

[Person Man]

Does Biden just ignore this or does he use it for cover after negative media coverage?

[brucejoel99]

Can anyone who doesn't write like an aspiring lawyer decode the above?

With a little (or rather a lot of) patience. It could be condensed into one sentence, but I do suspect it's done like that on purpose...

No need to be rude about it, but if y'all insist, then I so deeply apologize that just one paragraph concerning some nuanced complexities of statutory & administrative law were evidently a bit too much for y'all. In any event, executive orders are one thing & agency actions are another; the former don't need to be compliant with the APA, while the latter must be, & because - in both Trump's DACA case & this one - they weren't, the courts shut it down & say that they have to start over.

Any more legal nuances that y'all need dumbed-down on the... *checks notes* ... oh yeah, the Constitution & Law board!?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Can anyone who doesn't write like an aspiring lawyer decode the above?

With a little (or rather a lot of) patience. It could be condensed into one sentence, but I do suspect it's done like that on purpose...

No need to be rude about it, but if y'all insist, then I so deeply apologize that just one paragraph concerning some nuanced complexities of statutory & administrative law were evidently a bit too much for y'all. In any event, executive orders are one thing & agency actions are another; the former don't need to be compliant with the APA, while the latter must be, & because - in both Trump's DACA case & this one - they weren't, the courts shut it down & say that they have to start over.

Any more legal nuances that y'all need dumbed-down on the... *checks notes* ... oh yeah, the Constitution & Law board!?

We were fairly obviously not referring to the complexity of the legal issue but the unnecessary impenetrability of the writing. You may invoke Pascal and say you did not have time to make it shorter.

[Utah Neolib]

Mexico probably doesn’t like this

[Figueira]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

[Donerail]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

[politicallefty]

This is a hack decision. This case is completely different from DHS v. Regents. The Supreme Court, even before Kennedy retired, basically bent over backwards to support what the Trump Administration was doing through executive action. The DACA decision was one rare exception. This current Court is holding the Biden Administration to a very different standard. I suppose that should surprise no one, but they're barely even trying to cover. This is fundamentally a foreign policy decision where the courts should have no business. This should have been decided under the political question doctrine.

[David Hume]

Do we really need to put "BREAKING" in thread titles? Whenever I see the beginning of this thread title on the home page I think that SCOTUS did something new.

How else would you know that there's yet another possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts joining the liberals, or possibly a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing a non-controlling concurrence?

The order says the three liberals would grant the application. Is it possible that Roberts voted to grant the application, but did not want his name to be added in this sentence?

I think this sentence is different from a dissent that justices can decide to sign or not, but merely a statement of the fact, that some justices would grant the application. So if Roberts indeed voted for it, I tend to believe his name would be on it.