• About
  • Contact
  • Staff
  • Home
  • Essays
  • Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Classics

November 23, 2015|Administrative State, DAPA, Federal Reserve, Puerto Rico, State Bankruptcy, Texas v. United States

Obama’s Wrecking Ball Administration

by Michael S. Greve|

This past Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its expected petition for certiorari in Texas v. United States, involving several states’ challenge to the administration’s “deferred action” program (“DAPA”). DAPA would grant deferred action—and, along with it, work permits and other benefits—to several million immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction against DAPA on November 9; DoJ’s petition to review that preliminary ruling on an expedited schedule arrived within a fortnight.

Why the haste, my child? Well, on an expedited schedule this case could still be heard and decided this Term, permitting the present administration to implement the program. (Up to a point: it would have to process millions of applications in a few months. For a government that can’t build a website that might be a challenge.)

The petition presents three questions for review:

Whether a State that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action.

Whether the Guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. [The phrasing is a bit odd: their actual contention is that DAPA is enforcement action and therefore presumptively unreviewable.]

Whether the Guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures.

None of these questions are easy; they all arise in areas of the law—standing (especially for states), constitutional and statutory; enforcement discretion versus suspension of law; legislative versus interpretive rules) that are a hopeless mess. I wouldn’t expect the justices to clear any of that up in a case of this magnitude; they’ll just improvise their way through. If indeed they decide to hear the case.

There’s something a bit unseemly about this, don’t you think? Notoriously, the President discovered that he had discretion to implement this program—and ordered up an OLC memo to that effect—only after Congress had said “no.” Even then, the administration could have proceeded through an orderly notice-and-comment proceeding. Instead they crammed this down; and now they say: no one has standing, and it’s unreviewable. That’s constitutional hardball. If you play that game 24/7, the system crashes.

So, too, with the demand for expedited review. The administration’s position hangs on the contention that “deferred action” isn’t a change in the immigrant’s legal status. It’s just immigration jargon for, “we won’t deport you but we can revoke that decision any day.” That may be technically true; it’s not true in substance. No administration of any political coloration could revoke “deferred action” for millions of people. (Okay, the Trump administration could. I meant no sane administration.) That’s the point of hurrying it up.

In similar let’s-hurry-up news, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is asking the Supreme Court to review and revise a First Circuit ruling to the effect that a Commonwealth statute providing for a restructuring of the Territory’s public utilities is preempted by federal bankruptcy law. (Cert briefs and First Circuit ruling available here.) The Commonwealth, you see, is an offshore Illinois: it’s hopelessly under water, as are its utilities. If Puerto Rico can’t restructure the debts, say the petitioners, a financial and humanitarian catastrophe looms. (In passages that may have been ghost-written by Senator Warren, the briefs blame hedge fund vultures.) Nonsense, say the vultures’ lawyers: voluntary work-outs are doable, and Congress is actively considering changes that would permit its utilities—though not the Commonwealth itself—to restructure debts under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.

I doubt that the justices will want to get into the middle of this. (We may know soon: the case is on tomorrow’s conference list.) The same is likely true of Congress. What will happen, probably: the administration and the Fed will engineer a unilateral solution. They’ll fix it. They fix everything.

Michael S. Greve

Michael S. Greve is a professor at George Mason University School of Law. He is the author of The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2012).

About the Author

Thanksgiving with Tocqueville
Attuned to the Daimon

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Assessing Our Frayed Society with Byung-Chul Han June 12, 2018
  • Slavery Gave Us Double-Entry Bookkeeping? October 2, 2019
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Crisis of Identity Politics June 7, 2018
  • The Rivalry and Friendship of Jefferson and Adams: A Conversation with Gordon Wood June 4, 2018
  • Overusing The Big Stick January 23, 2018
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Book Reviews

A Mirror of the 20th-Century Congress

by Joseph Postell

Wright undermined the very basis of his local popularity—the decentralized nature of the House—by supporting reforms that gave power to the party leaders.

Read More

The Graces of Flannery O'Connor

by Henry T. Edmondson III

O’Connor’s correspondence is a goldmine of piercing insight and startling reflections on everything from literature to philosophy to raising peacocks.

Read More

Liberty Classics

Rereading Politica in the Post-Liberal Moment

by Glenn A. Moots

Althusius offers a rich constitutionalism that empowers persons to thrive alongside one another in deliberate communities.

Read More

James Fenimore Cooper and the American Experiment

by Melissa Matthes

In The American Democrat, James Fenimore Cooper defended democracy against both mob rule and majority tyranny.

Read More

Podcasts

Stuck With Decadence

A discussion with Ross Douthat

Ross Douthat discusses with Richard Reinsch his new book The Decadent Society.

Read More

Can the Postmodern Natural Law Remedy Our Failing Humanism?

A discussion with Graham McAleer

Graham McAleer discusses how postmodern natural law can help us think more coherently about human beings and our actions.

Read More

Did the Civil Rights Constitution Distort American Politics?

A discussion with Christopher Caldwell

Christopher Caldwell discusses his new book, The Age of Entitlement.

Read More

America, Land of Deformed Institutions

A discussion with Yuval Levin

Yuval Levin pinpoints that American alienation and anger emerges from our weak political, social, and religious institutions.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • The Just Restraint of the Vicious

    For some contemporary criminal justice reformers, devotion to ideology leads to illogical conclusions about human nature and character change.
    by Gerard T. Mundy

  • Too Immature to be Punished?

    When I look back on my own life, I think I knew by the age of ten that one should not strangle old ladies in their beds.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Badge of Discrimination

    The British National Health Service has spoken: Wear the badge or declare yourself to be a bigot.
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • A Judicial Takeover of Asylum Policy?

    Thuraissigiam threatens to make both the law and the facts in every petition for asylum—and there are thousands of them—a matter for the courts.
    by Thomas Ascik

  • The Environmental Uncertainty Principle

    By engaging in such flagrant projection, the Times has highlighted once again the problem with groupthink in the climate discussion.
    by Paul Schwennesen

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law & Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

The opinions expressed on Law & Liberty are solely those of the contributors to the site and do not reflect the opinions of Liberty Fund.
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

© 2021 Liberty Fund, Inc.

This site uses local and third-party cookies to analyze traffic. If you want to know more, click here.
By closing this banner or clicking any link in this page, you agree with this practice.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary Always Enabled

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Close