The ruling blocks new applicants, saying the programme was created illegally by former President Obama. The states argued that Obama never had the authority in 2012 to create a programme such as DACA because it circumvented Congress. The US Supreme Court previously ruled that Trump’s attempt to end DACA in 2017 was unlawful. The US Supreme Court previously ruled that Trump’s attempt to end DACA in 2017 was unlawful. A New York judge in December ordered the Trump administration to restore the programme as enacted by Obama.
Related:REASON - Democrats should filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination: Erwin Chemerinsky
If they don’t do so, he gets confirmed, and if they do filibuster and the Republicans eliminate the filibuster, he gets confirmed. This is a seat on the Supreme Court that Republicans stole by their refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. If that were to happen, there would be a radical change in constitutional law. In 1987, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Robert Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court entirely because of his originalist approach to constitutional law. The Democrats should do whatever they can, even if it ultimately fails, to keep someone with Gorsuch’s ideology from being on the Supreme Court.AL JAZEERA - Top EU court rules hijab can be banned at work
The European Union’s top court has ruled that employers may forbid the wearing of visible symbols of religious or political belief, such as headscarves. In a 2017 ruling, the European Union court in Luxembourg had already said that companies may ban staff from wearing headscarves and other visible religious symbols under certain conditions. Elsewhere in Europe, courts have also had to look into where and how headscarves can sometimes be banned at work. France, home to Europe’s largest Muslim minority, prohibited the wearing of Islamic headscarves in state schools in 2004. However, Austria’s constitutional court has ruled that a law there banning girls aged up to 10 from wearing headscarves in schools was discriminatory.REASON - Supreme Court Holds Trump Administration Rescission of DACA Was "Arbitrary and Capricious" (Updated)
The Court also rejected, by an 8-1 vote, the claim that the DACA rescission violated the Equal Protection Clause, though there is no majority opinion on that point. The threshold decision by the majority holding that the DACA rescission is subject to judicial review is significant. So the Obama Administration argued its immigration policies (DACA and DAPA) were unreviewable (and also reversible at any time) and the Trump Administration argued that its decision to end DACA was likewise unreviewable. He writes:DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. Though I think the Court today got the legal question wrong, the Trump Administration made it easier for the Court than it should have—and that's something we've seen from this Administration quite a bit.AOL - Judge orders end to DACA, current enrollees safe for now
People who are already enrolled won't lose protections, but Hanen is barring the processing of new applications. “If the nation truly wants to have a DACA program, it is up to Congress to say so,” Hanen wrote then. Hanen ruled in 2015 that Obama could not expand DACA protections or institute a program shielding their parents. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end DACA in 2017 was unlawful. A New York judge in December ordered the Trump administration to restore the program as enacted by Obama.