Outside of "I don't like this stupid law. TO THE SUPREME COURT!", there hasn't actually been even a partially convincing argument as to why the injunction should be lifted.A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a ruling blocking the Trump administration from ending the Obama-era program that protects young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from being deported.
The ruling from a panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals means a nationwide injunction allowing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to continue will remain in effect.
Challengers are likely to succeed in their argument that the planned phase-out is illegal, the court ruled.
The Trump administration has already asked the Supreme Court to review the injunction.
"We conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission of DACA -- at least as justified on this record -- is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law," the court ruled.
Its quite possible they will protect existing DACA applicants, but strike down the absurd ruling that the DOJ has to keep accepting new applicants. Its also similar to the travel ban case in that they are refusing to rule on the substantive issue, but instead they keep imposing injunctions. You do that when you suspect (whatever they say) that SCOTUS will rule in favour of the substantive issue eventually.On what legal grounds do you think?
Aside from the obvious fascinating bits of Trump's administration, one of the really interesting bits is the constant testing of the power of the President. There's no thinking behind outside of "I'm President, I want to do it". Now the courts haven't gone for that at all so far, it'll be interesting to see this when it gets to the SC.