Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration Are Ruled Unconstitutional – The Atlantic

In her dissent, the third judge, Carolyn King, counseled judicial restraint in what she framed as a policy dispute instead of a legal one. “Because the DAPA Memorandum contains only guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and does not itself confer any benefits to DAPA recipients, I would deem this case non-justiciable,” she wrote. “The policy decisions at issue in this case are best resolved not by judicial fiat, but via the political process.”

King then dives into a lengthy, point-by-point rebuttal of the majority’s interpretation of Texas’s standing to challenge the executive actions, their assertion that the creation of DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and their other conclusions about the case. Her colleagues, in an unusual step, praised a dissent that strenuously criticized them. “Our dedicated colleague has penned a careful dissent, with which we largely but respectfully disagree,” the other two judges said in a footnote. “It is well-researched, however, and bears a careful read.” She did not return their praise. “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made,” King concluded.

The White House has yet to officially respond to the Fifth Circuit’s long-awaited decision, which was handed down on a Monday night, but some officials have quietly voiced their frustrations. “We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws,” an unnamed White House official told Politico.


Write a Reply or Comment:

Your email address will not be published.*