Reference no: EM133812796

Question

What argument(s) would you have used to convince the Court to come to an opposite conclusion? To convince the Court to come to an opposite conclusion, one could argue that the government's decision to wind down DACA was a lawful exercise of discretion based on the dubious legal status of the program. The government could argue that DACA was implemented through executive action under the Obama administration without proper statutory authority. Therefore, the government had the discretion to wind down the program as it saw fit. Additionally, one could argue that the government's decision was not arbitrary and capricious because it considered the potential legal challenges to DACA and the need to address the program's legal deficiencies. The government could argue that the decision to wind down DACA was a reasonable response to the legal uncertainties surrounding the program and the need to prioritize enforcement of immigration laws. However, it is important to note that the Court's ruling was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the applicable law. The Court found that the government's justifications for ending DACA were insufficient and that the decision violated the APA [1]. The Court's decision was in line with the principles of administrative law and the need for reasoned decision-making by government agencies.