Trump Sends Urgent Message to Supporters After DACA Decision


On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled against the current president’s attempts to undo the prior president’s fiat.

In a 5-4 decision, the nation’s highest court ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an initiative that offered individuals who came to the United States as children legal protections against removal and allowed them to work in the country.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, claimed the Trump administration moved arbitrarily to end the program, saying it didn’t offer adequate justification for winding it down. Roberts was joined by the four liberal justices on the court: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

“The dispute before the Court is not whether [the Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” Roberts’ ruling read.

The ruling stated that under the Administrative Procedures Act, the administration must “provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” which includes “what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”

GOP Rep Moves to Institute Death Penalty for Child Sex Abusers: 'Let's See Who Tries to Protect Pedophiles'

President Trump clarified Friday morning that “nothing was won or lost” and his administration would resubmit the enhanced documents to the high court to fulfill its ruling and request.

Roberts’ decision to side with the court’s liberal contingent in a case involving the Administrative Procedures Act isn’t a new thing; last year, Roberts joined the liberal minority in a decision that voided a citizenship question on the U.S. Census for roughly the same reasons outlined in Thursday’s ruling.

For conservatives, it was another disappointment out of Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee. The chief justice has been a more reliable swing vote than the previous Republican-appointed court hinge — Anthony Kennedy — but his rulings in several major cases have left conservatives baffled, and not because they expect judges appointed under Republican presidents to stick with the team.

Roberts’ most infamous vote came when he voted to uphold the key portion of Obamacare, the individual mandate, in a 2012 case. There, Roberts said he believed the mandate fell under government’s legitimate purview to tax. The problem is that these decisions always seem uniquely Jesuitical, with Roberts’ logic seeming to exist mostly to preserve his predetermined path.

All of which is to say the 2020 election is terribly important to conservatives — something the president underlined in a series of tweets shortly after the decision was made.

“These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives,” Trump wrote. “We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!”

Farmers Rise Up, Quote SCOTUS' Own Declaration in Move to End Race-Based USDA Aid Payments

In another series of tweets, the president said he “will be releasing a new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees, which may include some, or many of those already on the list, by September 1, 2020” and that he would “only choose from this list.”

The list of potential picks is more important than you might think. During the 2016 election cycle, Republicans concerned about Trump’s conservative bona fides were quelled somewhat by a solidly seagoing roster of potential Supreme Court picks which he didn’t deviate from.

Can Trump expand a conservative majority on the Supreme Court if given a second term?

While there might still be some question about Trump’s conservative bona fides, those lie mostly in the areas of trade and budget; few would doubt this administration’s impact on the judiciary has been far-reaching and positive for the right.

The reason for releasing the list this time will be to act as a stark reminder of the importance of the first Tuesday in November.

On one side of the ballot, you’ll have a man who’s released a list of conservative jurists that you’ll likely be happy with, if you’re a regular reader. On the other side of the ballot, you’ll have a man who said, not entirely in jest, that he would consider Barack Obama for nomination to the nation’s highest court.

This round of decisions hasn’t been particularly kind to conservatives, and one must note Neil Gorsuch’s curious logic in a case which the court ruled gay and transgender individuals are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act — despite the fact it was written when same-sex acts or being transgender were both illegal in most jurisdictions.

Aside from occasional lapses, though, both of the president’s appointees to the court have made sound decisions. Given the elevated importance of the Supreme Court, that makes the Oval Office and the Senate key prizes, as well.

Aside from this, keep in mind that two justices will either possibly or definitely be replaced over the next four years. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 87 and Stephen Breyer is 81.

If presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is elected and the Democrats flip the Senate, they’ll be replaced by younger justices in his first year, I can guarantee. (Hope you like Justice Obama, an individual who’s never held any position on any court.)

In the case Trump is elected and the Republicans maintain the Senate, there’s always the strong chance that both those liberal members leave in some shape or form. In that case, the conservative majority would be swing-proof.

As the list will remind you: It’s one or the other.

This week has proved how important that choice will be, particularly with a President Biden determined to attack religious freedom, gun rights and the right to life — and to preserve all the programs Obama enacted by executive order while simultaneously dismantling Trump’s.

CORRECTION, June 19, 2020: When originally published, this article claimed the Supreme Court decided President Trump couldn’t undo DACA. However, the court ruled the Trump administration hadn’t followed the proper procedure to change the DACA rule. This article has been updated to correct this information, and to include tweets from President Trump on the matter.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , , , , , ,
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he's written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).
Morristown, New Jersey
Catholic University of America
Languages Spoken
English, Spanish
Topics of Expertise
American Politics, World Politics, Culture