The U.S. Supreme Court was once again faced with a continuing dilemma on Tuesday: How much discretion does an administration have in enforcing the nation's immigration laws when virtually everyone agrees that there simply aren't enough resources to deport even a major fraction of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States.
"Shouldn't we just say what we think the law is, even if we think 'shall' means 'shall,' and then leave it to [Congress] to sort that out?" Roberts asked. Prelogar replied that"one of the reasons the court has recognized that there is enforcement discretion in this area is precisely because of the practical necessity." Agencies, she said,"cannot proceed against every violation of the statute.
"Wow," interjected Roberts,"That's what the D.C. Circuit and other courts of appeals have been doing all the time as a staple of their decision output."
What’s the point of this case? Even if (when) the court rules against the administration and says that shall means shall, what happens? Nothing.
Let’s see if Gop will attempt to address immigration since they have the majority in the house. My guess is they won’t, what will they use to scare the crap out of ppl at election time? Scary brown ppl sells to the base
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »
Source: HoustonChron - 🏆 609. / 51 Read more »
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »
Source: mercnews - 🏆 88. / 68 Read more »
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »