Thread by @cristianafarias

I just got out of the #DACA arguments at the Supreme Court. As expected, it was a very mixed bag. And it will come down to John Roberts.

The justices spent a ton of time on “reviewability.” Can a court review a government’s decision to rescind a non-enforcement policy?

The Trump administration says no. But it also says courts could review the legality of the original #DACA... because Obama did a lawless thing.

In that respect, it was a really strange hearing: For a good chunk of it, the justices seemed focused on what Obama originally did

But that’s not what’s at stake. What’s at stake is the way Donald Trump ended #DACA. Can you say you love Dreamers, call Obama lawless, and be done?

The more liberal justices would seem to demand more. After all, hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. At a minimum, administrative law requires a reasonable explanation.

And an accounting for how the government’s decision affects all the stakeholders — dreamers or not.

The Trump administration didn’t do any of that. Jeff Sessions and DHS simply called #DACA unlawful, pointed to a court decision about a different but related program, and cited the fear of being sued.

None of those are “policy” reasons, but legal conclusions courts may weigh.

And have. All three rulings the Supreme Court is reviewing concluded that Trump needed to do more. Calling something illegal doesn’t magically make it so.

And if you want to end #DACA and destroy lives because you don’t like immigrants, just say so. Don’t hide behind legalese.

Some justices, like Neil Gorsuch and Stephen Breyer, wanted “limiting principles” and bright line rules.

Would ruling against the government and make it go back to square one, since no one disputes Trump may end #DACA, open the door to “playing ping pong” with an agency?

This is where Roberts comes into play. As he did in the census case a few months ago, he may be amenable to affirming that the president had the power to rescind #DACA, but that his administration needs to do it in a way that satisfies both courts and the public. Split the baby.

With this I’ll end: The arguments were very technical and at times esoteric.

But briefly, Justice Sotomayor reminded everyone that this case is also about a president who on one hands says he wants to protect #DACA recipients, but on the other made a choice to “destroy lives.”

Perhaps the biggest reliance interest of them all here is how the president coward that he is, still cannot own this decision politically.

And refuses to acknowledge he just ended #DACA not out of constitutional principle, which he lacks, but to throw red meat to his base.

/END

Donald Trump can’t get away with escaping accountability for killing #DACA. But neither should the Supreme Court. Whatever happens, both will have to own it.

Me in @NYMag. nymag.com/intelligencer/…