Trump wrote an EO resending obama's daca eo
The SCOTUS ruled that the rescinding was
arbitrary and capricious under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Wolf tried to use internal DHS rulings as a workaround but since Trump stupidly appointed an acting DHS head improperly...that failed
I'm pretty sure the current supreme court would rule differently
But hell daca is illegal to begin with
By the way what was
arbitrary and capricious about what the President did?
A judge may rule that decisions are “arbitrary and capricious” for several reasons including:
- There was a clear error of judgment.
- Or, there was an absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
- As well as the action was not based upon consideration of relevant factors.
- Additionally there may be an abuse of discretion.
Arbitrary And Capricious Decision - TSGLI Lawyers | TSGLI Application | TSGLI Claim
In
administrative law, a
government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard. Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling where in an
appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.
Substantial evidence[edit]
A
finding of fact made by a
jury or an administrative agency in the context of APA adjudication or formal rulemaking will be normally upheld on appeal unless it is unsupported by "substantial evidence." This means something "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence.
[1] It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
[1] Under the "substantial evidence" standard, appellate review extends to whether there is any relevant evidence in the record which reasonably supports every material fact (that is, material in the sense of establishing an essential element of a claim or defense). Appellate courts will not reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence submitted by the parties. In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e., through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in order to reach a verdict. If the parties presented conflicting evidence, appellate courts applying a "substantial evidence" standard assume that the jury or administrative agency resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and in turn, appellate courts must defer to such implicit findings about which side's witnesses or documents were more believable, even if they suspect they might have ruled differently if hearing the evidence themselves in the first instance. This is a highly deferential standard.
Clearly erroneous[edit]
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, where a trial court (as opposed to a jury or administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a
bench trial, that finding will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by that court.
[2] For example, if a court finds, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a 30-pound rock over 100 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the lower court) stating that such a feat is impossible for most people. In such a case, the appeals court might find that, although there was evidence to support the lower court's finding, the evidence taken as a whole—including the eyewitness and the expert testimony—leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the Court below.
