Chicago Immigration Lawyer Blog
The Government must “turn square corners in dealing with the people” said on June 18, 2020, the United States Supreme Court in rejecting the Administration’s explanations why it wants to terminate DACA. The Government instead of “turning square corners” skipped a few corners and the Court decided that its action in terminating DACA was arbitrary and capricious. The Chicago Immigration lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer PC finds very significant that Supreme Court acknowledged that “there is so much at stake” and characterized the relationship between the Government and the people as one that has demands on both sides.
Justice Holmes famously wrote that “[m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143 (1920). But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that “the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people.” St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208, 229 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). DHS et al. v. Regents of Univ. of California, et al. 591 U. S. ____ (2020)(emphasis added)
On June 18, 2018, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act in their 2017 attempt to terminate DACA. The Supreme Court did not answer the question whether or not DACA is lawful. The Court only answered the question whether or not the DHS “complied with the procedural requirements” to provide a “reasoned explanation for its action.” The Court stated that the Administrative Procedures Act requires agencies to engage in “reasoned decisionmaking” and that the DHS’s decision making was inadequate.
The Court stated:
Whether DACA is illegal is, of course, a legal determination, and therefore a question for the Attorney General. But deciding how best to address a finding of illegality moving forward can involve important policy choices, especially when the finding concerns a program with the breadth of DACA. Those policy choices are for DHS. DHS et al. v. Regents of Univ. of California, et al. 591 U. S. ____ (2020)