1

I've just read this article on Slate. In it, they describe how Trumps administration has ignored deadlines imposed by the U.S. District court, after losing a case to SCOTUS (I bolded the most relevant specific example).

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it will continue to defy a federal court order compelling the full restoration of DACA, the Obama-era program that allows 700,000 immigrants to live and work in the United States legally. By doing so, the administration has chosen to flout a decision by the Supreme Court, effectively rejecting the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is.

Donald Trump first attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in September 2017, a move that would’ve stripped its beneficiaries of work permits and subjected them to deportation. But his administration continually cut corners, failing to explain the basis for its decision and refusing to consider the impact of DACA repeal on immigrants, their communities, and their employers (including the U.S. Army). This June, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” under federal law and therefore “set aside” DACA repeal.

To implement that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm compelled the administration to restore DACA to its pre-repeal condition on July 17. Grimm’s order required the Department of Homeland Security to let DACA beneficiaries renew their status for two years, accept new applicants, and restore “advance parole,” which permits travel outside the country. But DHS did not do that. Instead, the agency maintained that it would reject new DACA applicants. It also declined to accept DACA renewals or reinstate advance parole.

Does SCOTUS and the judicial branch have any way to actually enforce laws on the executive branch? It's one thing to enforce laws on some random citizen, but it seems there is no way for SCOTUS to enforce laws against the branch of gov't that's responsible for enforcing laws.

  • 4
    "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." ---attributed to Andrew Jackson. – Nate Eldredge Jul 29 at 1:49
  • 1
    "It's one thing to enforce laws on some random citizen" - Is it? They can't even do that by themselves. They need the executive branch (i.e. the police or US marshal or someone with a gun) to really enforce anything if it comes down to resisting. – Doug Jul 29 at 2:15
  • @Doug All I meant by that is, the executive branch has no direct conflict of interest with enforcing laws on a random citizen, so there's little reason for them to disobey SCOTUS there. – spacetyper Jul 29 at 2:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.