As a legal strategy, it's absurd. But we're not in Kansas anymore. This same strategy was used to block the Muslim travel ban. Now the left is gambling that activist judges will use it to block the dismantling of Obama's illegal alien amnesty.
In a court filing Tuesday afternoon, attorneys asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to allow them to amend an existing lawsuit filed on behalf of a Mexican-born man — who came to the United States when he was seven years old and received work authorization under DACA — to address Tuesday’s policy change.
Lawyers for the plaintiff, Martín Batalla Vidal, said they planned to raise two claims against the administration’s decision to end DACA: First, that officials failed to offer a “reasoned explanation” for the move, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act, and, second, that the decision was unconstitutionally “motivated by anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus.”
If conservative lawyers had walked into court in the Obama era and argued presidential prejudice and a lack of a "reasoned explanation",no judge would have even bothered to laugh them out of the courtroom. The idea that prejudice is even an argument or that presidents have to satisfy judges with reasoned explanations wouldn't have even been considered absurdity.
But here we are. And judges have used both attacks to block the Muslim travel ban. The premise is wildly illegal and absurd. Now more so than ever. But so what.
Sure, DACA is an illegal abuse of power. Sure, it was entirely brought into being only by pen and paper. But that doesn't matter. The left decided that illegal aliens are a social justice issue. Leftist judges will protect them. And the Supreme Court is unreliable, especially considering that the Republican commitment on illegal immigration is even weaker than on gay marriage.
There's only two ways forward. Either surrender to Judicial Supremacism. Or resist it.