Strange Interpretation of the Supreme Court DACA Ruling

Mental gymnastics are nothing new in politics and the ongoing battle over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is no exemption. After Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would have shielded undocumented immigrants who arrived here as children from deportation and given them a path to citizenship, President Obama instituted DACA, it included  prioritizing deportation of undocumented immigrants with criminal histories and deprioritizing child arrivals, Obama, by executive order, made it United States immigration policy that these "Dreamers" (after the DREAM Act) would be able to work, attend school and come out of the shadows without fear of deportation.

Opponents viewed this action as a usurpation of Congress' legislative powers; proponents argued that it was well within the discretionary enforcement authority of a federal agency. Trump announced during his campaign that he would rescind the program, and attempted to do so early in his term, using the program as a bargaining chip in his quest to get funding for his border wall. After his executive order reversing Obama's executive order creating the program, it was reversed by several courts, eventually making its way to the Supreme Court.

This summer the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's rationale for eliminating DACA did not hold water. There are legal procedures that must be followed in order to eliminate a program that is already in place (I won't get into the details...use The Google), the administration did not follow these procedures. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of DACA. And that's really the heart of the matter. DACA is a popular program. Trump does not want it eliminated because he doesn't like it, he wants it eliminated because it's illegal, which he cannot do, because the court has not addressed that issue, and only ruled narrowly on procedure.

Here's where it gets weird. John Yoo, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote an article where he suggested that the DACA ruling gives a president virtually unlimited authority, by executive order, to bypass Congress in enacting its policies. These orders will then be protected from reversal by subsequent presidents, unless a years-long legal fight ensues. This theory has been making the rounds of right-wing and Trumpist pundits. Trump himself referred to it twice in the last week, once in reference to a change in immigration policy, and second, oddly, pertaining to unveiling a new comprehensive health care plan "in two weeks".

That's not what the ruling days, or even implies, but Trump has always been open to tinfoil hat interpretations of what he could and could not do. He has also demonstrated a willingness to bend the Constitution into a pretzel to get what he wanted, such as his declaration of a national emergency at the border that seemed to evaporate after he used it to justify diverting military funds for wall construction after he has been rebuffed by Congress; and his recent use of federal officers supposedly to protect federal property in Portland.

Trump has had, from Day One, an authoritarian mindset, who knows what bullshit he will attempt as his term winds down.