Friday, March 2, 2018

Court Holds Up End to DACA: Here’s Why


President Trump announced last September 5th his intention to terminate President Obama’s DACA program. And earlier this week, the president also announced a sweeping tariff policy while answering a reporter. As of this hour (Friday, 1:00 p.m.), the U.S. has not officially stated a tariff policy for steel and aluminum. Markets and foreign governments are reacting, nonetheless.
The Federal Register is a daily publication of the U.S. federal government that issues proposed and final administrative regulations. Anyone can visit the Federal Register (it’s here https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/current).
The Register announces rules—“proposed,” “interim,” and “final.” The public is solicited for comments.
For example, today’s Federal Register announces that the Department of Education will begin to accept applications for new charter schools. 
Against this backdrop, a study by USA Today finds that there is a discrepancy between White House policy annoucements that occasionally post inaccurate versions of President Trump's executive orders on its website, and official versions published in the Federal Register.
What’s wrong with this?
First, it indicates an unprecedented degree of sloppiness and unprofessionalism in the White House.
Second, it raises questions as to what policies are being set by the executive branch. Are they tweets? Interviews? Or are they actual notices in the Federal Register?
Third, it is “haste makes waste.”
Finally, there are legally binding rules about how the executive branch announces and implements policy (under the Administrative Procedure Act). If a rule is proposed or implemented without following the proper procedures, courts can void or hold up the rule.
That is a key reason, among several, that a federal court has put President Trump’s March 5th deadline for ending DACA on hold. If you want specifics, see https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Batalla-Vidal-v-Nielsen-updated-pi-order-2018-02-13.pdf (Feb. 13th ruling).

No comments: