TRUMP ILLEGALLY RESCINDED DACA: ROBERTS WRITE FOR LIBERALS IN 5-4 DECISION https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
0-2 so far on my Roberts big case vote predictions: https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1205706524993163264?s=20
Roberts, RBG, Breyer, Kagan reject claim that Trump admin acted out of animus towards Hispanics.

Sotomayor wouldn't have done that at this point:
https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1273620716672466949?s=20
Meanwhile, this is noteworthy:

The Obama Admin defended DACA's legality by arguing it didn't violate separation of powers because it was merely a non-enforcement policy.

The liberals have joined Roberts (and the four conservative dissenters) in saying otherwise.
This means DACA itself remains in jeopardy, should Trump fail to properly rescind DACA while President, or should Biden win in November but not get Congress to pass the DREAM Act, or should Texas et al move forward with its challenge to DACA's legality https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1273627875787276288?s=20
Though this part has compromise-dodge-to-maintain-majority written all over it - an outright refusal to assess whether the AG/Acting DHS Sec were right to assume DACA illegal based on CA5's DAPA ruling:
I want to expand on how this bit from Thomas's dissent works with the majority's concession that DACA was more than a non-enforcement policy: https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1273627875787276288?s=20
The Trump Admin's key argument, adopted by the dissent today, and which I think has quite a lot of force, is that if DACA was, as the Obama Admin described it, a mere non-enforcement policy, then it could be rescinded with the same stroke of a pen it had been enacted...
But to reject the DACA rescission, the majority--including the four liberals--had to say "nope, it provided affirmative benefits and reliance interests that make it more like an agency action than the deferred action it was bill as" https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1273653702247829506?s=20
The majority had to do this because if they didn't, they couldn't rely on the one precedent controlling today's outcome: https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1273654429611429888?s=20
But the liberals' concession that DACA was more a regulation than a non-enforcement policy means they won't be able to simply ignore Texas's argument that the Obama Admin violated the APA and separation of powers, should the case reach SCOTUS: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/press/DACA%20MSJ%20Brief.pdf
With their strongest substantive position now apparently waived to keep Chief Justice Roberts's vote, the liberals now must rely on rejecting Texas's Article III Standing if they want to beat back the states' DACA attack.

Luckily for the liberals, it's a plausible position.
And also luckily for the liberals, Chief Justice Roberts is a standing hawk. https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1273660109655334914?s=20
But unluckily for the liberals, the answer to this question is "no." https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1273661417183461376?s=20
And now that SCOTUS has ruled, Judge Hanen is getting the gears going again on the Texas challenge to DACA, asking the parties to provide a status report by July 24 on their proposed ways forward
As conservatives howl over Roberts's latest heresy, note that he did them a political favor by avoiding mass deportations in an election year, and then got his liberal hostages to abandon DACA's best defense against lawsuits seeking kill it and blame ensuing consequences on Obama
Sure Roberts’ atom-splitting the rescission order to explode it as arbitrary and capricious isn’t convincing, but HE’S SAVING YOU FROM YOURSELVES AND TRYING TO ENSURE YOU HAVE A POLITICAL FUTURE https://twitter.com/mikesacksesq/status/1273735108370092032
You can follow @MikeSacksEsq.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: