Confused about what happened in the Supreme Court this past week on the DACA ‘kids’?
Ken Masugi writing at American Greatnesstells us how bad the decision is for us that a President is bound to an illegal decision made by a previous President simply because the new President calling foul didn’t dot all the ‘I’s and cross all the ‘T’s. (Hat tip: Paul)
(Of course questions remain about whether the Trump Administration wasscrewed by sloppy legal workon his side, or intentionally sabotaged by government lawyers who crafted its case.)
Just as the infamous Dred Scott case in 1857 would have extended slavery throughout America, so Thursday’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California threatens to make the machinations of bureaucratic government supreme and unrepealable.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ 5-4 court opinion strengthens the grip of the administrative state—the interlocking network of bureaucracy and political correctness—over the democratically elected branches that are supposed to make us a nation of self-governing citizens.
The Supreme Court, in a seeming conspiracy with lower federal courts, has tilted the table against the elected president and his appointees in favor of bureaucratic governance.
As dissenting Justice Alito pointed out, “the Federal Judiciary, without holding that [the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program] cannot be rescinded, has prevented that from occurring during an entire Presidential term. Our constitutional system is not supposed to work that way.” The judiciary, far from clarifying and drawing bright lines, has effectively become part of the bureaucracy.
Admitting that the equal protection or due process rights of the children of illegal residents—a.k.a. “the dreamers”—were never in jeopardy, Roberts nevertheless concluded that the Trump Administration’s repeals of unlawful Obama Administration actions are illegal because the appropriate provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act were not followed.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch) noted that as a result of this ruling, the Department of Homeland Security “is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”
Despite the illegality of DACA and other policies, which were never laws to begin with, there remains the question of how we are to be free of arbitrary and capricious bureaucratic edicts and decrees.
To repeat: the error is the most basic separation of powers error possible: The court confused itself with the Congress and began making policy demands of the executive…
Aided by a life-tenured Court, the administrative state may have found its Dred Scott case in DHS v. Regents and thereby the means for making itself the true ruler of America.
Whether this will portend a new civil war over whether Americans are subjects or citizens is an open question. For one thing, it isn’t a war unless citizens recognize they are being fired upon.
And, if there was only one reason (there are many!) to get out there now and work to assure that President Trump is reelected remember this—the President appoints federal judges and Supreme Court justices!
Editor: Sorry I haven’t been posting much here lately, I’ve been busy at RRW (as well as being distracted as I assume many of you are as well by of demands of just living these days!), but this is very important and I’m not sure how many of you read RRW.
Cross-postedthis morning in an effort to find groups that could support the Thomas More Law Center’s legal petition to the Supreme Court.
I know it’s a little hard to believe that there are other things going on in America besides the virus crisis, but here is important news I should have mentioned sooner.
The Thomas Moore Law Center has filed a petition to attempt to get the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Amendment case that has been working its way through the legal system.
The heart of the case is the Tenth Amendment argument that the federal government has no Constitutional power to shift the cost of refugee resettlement onto state governments as it has been doing for decades.
TMLC is looking for other like-minded organizations to file amicus briefs in support of their argument which has far-reaching implications beyond just the refugee program!
Thomas More Law Center Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Review Tennessee’s Challenge to Federal Refugee Resettlement Program
ANN ARBOR, MI – In what could have far reaching implications for all states seeking to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) collaborating with attorney John Bursch, filed a certiorari petition Monday, March 16 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The petition asks the Court to hold that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s forced state funding of the federal refugee resettlement program.
The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) is a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Both TMLC and Mr. Bursch are representing Tennessee without charge.
John Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general, nationally prominent appellate lawyer and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, authored the petition for certiorari.
The petition argues that the issues presented in the Tennessee case cut to the core of the Constitution’s protection of states against overreach by the federal government. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to appropriate state funds, contrary to the wishes of the state, to fund a federal program.
According to the petition: “If a state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dare stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter.”
The petition seeks to overturn a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled that the General Assembly does not have institutional standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The cert petition does not challenge the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in Tennessee. What it objects to is forcing Tennessee taxpayers to pay the costs of the resettlement.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of TMLC, noted: “From the beginning, opposition to the federal refugee resettlement program has been about protecting Tennessee’s state sovereignty from impermissible federal interference. The federal government cannot simply commandeer state tax dollars to fund a purely federal program to extend benefits to noncitizens.”
Tennessee initially agreed to participate in the federal resettlement program because the federal government promised to reimburse 100 percent of the cost. In fact, Congress crafted the 1980 Refugee Act specifically intending that states not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible. As is often the case, however, the federal government began shrinking its financial support to the states and by 1991 eliminated it entirely. Due to the mounting costs the federal government was not covering as promised, Tennessee withdrew from the program effective June 30, 2008. But that didn’t stop the federal financial burden on Tennessee taxpayers. The federal government simply designated Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a non-governmental private organization, to continue the program with state dollars.
Between 2007 and the end of 2019, resettlement agencies pumped more than 15,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns. They came from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan 3 and many other countries. They often arrive from United Nations camps in poor health, with no job skills or English-language abilities.
The resulting cost to state taxpayers amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In 2015 alone, the refugee-related Medicaid costs paid by Tennessee tax dollars topped $30 million.
Instead of resolving the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the pivotal constitutional issue concerning federalism by ruling that the Tennessee General Assembly lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.
The petition filed on March 16, 2020, argues that this was in error:
“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government has co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget. That is because the federal government can siphon state funds—to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”
TMLC originally filed the federal lawsuit in March 2017 on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens challenging the commandeering of millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.
A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case on the federal government’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the General Assembly lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court now has a chance to shed light on the proper role of the states relative to the federal government—which is the bedrock constitutional principle of federalism.
The petition states: “The (Tennessee) General Assembly does not object to the federal resettlement program. It does not even object to the federal government resettling 4 refugees in Tennessee. The General Assembly does object to the federal government reaching its hand into Tennessee’s pocket to pay for the cost of such a program, particularly when the enabling legislation was enacted with the promise to reimburse states for all expenses incurred in this program.”
The federal government mandates that states provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.
Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.
The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.
And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.
Everyone knows that George Soros funds Leftwing causes and is a proponent of open borders, but even as the Koch brothers (David Koch died this year) have been tagged as the conservative movements money bags, not everyone knows the Kochs have pushed the immigration issue on the same side as Soros and his ilk.
Maybe it happened in your state, but about 8 years ago or so, Americans for Prosperity(Koch creation) came on the scene in Maryland and initially Tea Party groups were thrilled to have a well-funded ally—that is, until it became clear that the subject of immigration (the hottest issue in Maryland at that time) was off the table.
Now comes news that the Koch name is front and center in support of the so-called ‘Dreamers’ as Trump’s effort to dismantle an Obama era executive order that gave amnesty to scores of ‘children’ (not adults) who came to America illegally were given permission to stay and work in America (of course the plan is to eventually give them citizenship and voting rights) goes to the Supreme Court.
Koch’s interest is financial as the subject of labor, and lots of it, is the driving force behind much of the Open Borders movement’s agenda. Humanitarian lingo is a shield they hide behind!
Koch groups take immigration art exhibit to DC ahead of DACA hearing at Supreme Court
The top nonprofit groups affiliated with conservative mega-donor Charles Koch are unveiling a pop-up art exhibit in Washington, D.C., meant to extol the benefits of immigration.
The “Common Ground” exhibit comes ahead of a Nov. 12 Supreme Court hearing on the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
It features nine doors with life-size video screens that show different aspects of immigrant life in the United States.
The exhibit is being brought to Washington by Stand Together, the main nonprofit arm of the Koch network, in conjunction with Americans for Prosperity and the Libre Institute, also nonprofit groups within the Koch orbit.
The exhibit will open Tuesday in Washington’s renovated Wharf area, after showings at Nashville’s Politicon and Miami’s Wynwood Art District.
It shows nine aspects of immigrant life, starting with a door titled “Meet Dreamers,” in allusion to DACA recipients, commonly known as “Dreamers.”
Dreamers are on the forefront of the immigration debate as the Supreme Court gears up for the Nov. 12 hearing, where it will decide on the legality of President Trump’s 2017 order to revoke the Obama-era program.
Under DACA, undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors, registered, paid a fee and passed a background check were given a reprieve from deportation and permission to work in the country. Those permits are renewable every two years.
The program was meant as a bridge while Congress legislated a permanent solution for Dreamers.
Trump in September 2017 canceled the program, arguing President Obama had overreached and single-handedly legislated on immigration by granting work permits in addition to deferred action on deportation.
And, for you, the worker whose salaries are kept low by a steady supply of cheap immigrant labor, or you whose community is destroyed by diversity, or you, taxpayers, who pay for welfare benefits and health care for Koch/Soros workers and non-workers, there are no money bags supporting your side of the argument.
The decision “effectively gives businesses relying on taxpayer dollars the ability to decide for themselves what data the public will see about how that money is spent.”
(Maribel Wadsworth, President USA Today Network)
In a case that has been working its way through the court system for at least eight years, a majority ruling by the Court decided in favor of businesses and the government and thus says the government does not have to release to the public any information that would shine a light on possible food stamp fraud by the thousands of small stores that participate in the massive federally-funded SNAP program.
I can’t believe that I am on the same side as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the mainstream media in a case involving the Freedom of Information Act. The Supremes led by Justice Gorsuch ruled that we, who pay for the food stamp program, have no right to know how much of our money is going to businesses that participate.
(See my posts here and at RRWabout egregious food stamp fraud cases). The Trump Administration argued for the right of businesses to keep their government funding secret.
I’m not a lawyer, but wonder if the ruling would apply to the refugee contractors and those big companies caring for ‘asylum seekers’ or any other business that lives off of taxpayer dollars! Will they now have a high court decision that would prohibit us from learning about their pipeline to the federal treasury? Continue reading “Supreme Court Rules Against South Dakota Newspaper Looking for Food Stamp Fraud Data”→