DACA决定:国土安全部诉加州大学校董会及其影响

Brian Wolfman
{"title":"DACA决定:国土安全部诉加州大学校董会及其影响","authors":"Brian Wolfman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3846903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.<br><br>The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. Some commentators noted, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling it is not a major legal landmark—that it involves only the application of settled administrative-law principles. I largely agree with that view. Nonetheless, the decision’s administrative-law holdings are interesting, and the Court’s ruling contains several of what I view as “extras”—little nuances that may impact the law over time and that should interest administrative-law nerds.<br>","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The DACA decision: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and its implications\",\"authors\":\"Brian Wolfman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3846903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.<br><br>The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. Some commentators noted, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling it is not a major legal landmark—that it involves only the application of settled administrative-law principles. I largely agree with that view. Nonetheless, the decision’s administrative-law holdings are interesting, and the Court’s ruling contains several of what I view as “extras”—little nuances that may impact the law over time and that should interest administrative-law nerds.<br>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846903\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown immigration law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

特朗普政府试图摆脱“童年抵美者暂缓遣返”(DACA)的努力,在最高法院审理的国土安全部诉加州大学校务委员会案(140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896(2020))中失败。在这篇文章中——基于2020年9月在美国律师协会(American Bar Association)的一次演讲——我回顾了DACA、最高法院的决定及其潜在的法律影响。特朗普政府未能取消DACA可能会产生重大的政治后果,而且肯定会对DACA数十万受益人中的许多人产生直接和重大的后果。然而,一些评论家指出,最高法院的裁决并不是一个重要的法律里程碑——它只涉及到既定行政法原则的应用。我在很大程度上同意这种观点。尽管如此,该判决的行政法观点还是很有趣的,而且法院的裁决包含了一些我认为是“额外的”——随着时间的推移,可能会影响法律的细微差别,应该会引起行政法书呆子的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The DACA decision: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and its implications
The Trump Administration's effort to get rid of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, failed before the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1896 (2020). In this essay -- based on a presentation given to an American Bar Association section in September 2020 -- I review DACA, the Supreme Court's decision, and its potential legal implications.

The failure of the Trump Administration to eliminate DACA may have had significant political consequences, and it surely had immediate and momentous consequences for many of DACA’s hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. Some commentators noted, however, that the Supreme Court’s ruling it is not a major legal landmark—that it involves only the application of settled administrative-law principles. I largely agree with that view. Nonetheless, the decision’s administrative-law holdings are interesting, and the Court’s ruling contains several of what I view as “extras”—little nuances that may impact the law over time and that should interest administrative-law nerds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信