Hamish Stewart 苏汉轼’s Post

The decision we’ve all been waiting for! (Or, at least admin law nerds like me….) Check out a great summary of the case by my colleagues.

Update: Last night, following the SCOTUS ruling, the 5th Circuit "dissolved" the administrative stay (which SCOTUS found "odd"), so the injunction is back in effect until a panel of 5th Circuit judges rule today. This "chaos" as Justice Sotomayor characterized it, is not how government is supposed to work. ----- Is this the end of plenary power? Are states now left to independently enact laws that apply to immigrants? To risk US foreign policy? This is a very big change in US law, in the balance of power between branches of government, and perhaps most importantly, in federalism and prioritizing the union of the states.

Presidential policies can generate reliance interests that agencies must consider before changing policies. In “Administrative Reliance,” Prof. Haiyun Damon-Feng distills the doctrine of administrative reliance and highlights which values it seeks to protect. #adlaw Read here: https://lnkd.in/gG2PX8mB

LATEST UPDATE ON PROPOSED BIDEN PAROLE PROPOSAL Expected to be announced Tuesday June 18, 2024 This article below is a relatively accurate summary of the current state of information about this proposed program. Bear in mind that 1) it has not yet even been announced; 2) the details of how it would work and who it would cover are still subject to change; 3) there is a strong likelihood that Biden’s opponents (Republican governors and attorneys-general) will sue to block the law and likely there will be a judge who will issue a nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the law, as they did with Biden’s re-opening of DACA to new applicants in 2021.  So we recommend that no one hire a lawyer or notario to take action on this proposal until more information is available and a plan is in place. PBS ARTICLE: https://lnkd.in/gzcEvYnf

"The latest announcement from the Integrity Commissioner brings the number of total investigations to more than 10, with others possibly on the way." The number of investigations at play in the #ArriveCan saga highlights like nothing else that the Government of Canada has long suffered from a perverse combination of far too many rules (often too complicated for mere mortals to understand) and, at best, convoluted accountability for both ministers and public servants. This is largely the result of an overly centralized political system and bureaucracy, seemingly unparalleled anywhere else among Westminster-style parliamentary systems. This hyper-centralized structure profoundly undermines our ability to talk honestly about, let alone deal effectively with, the challenges Canada now faces. We need to find a way to address this. #canpoli

A sensitive yet very important topic. The law of unintended consequences and catch-22 here. https://lnkd.in/gfFvFa5i

"The Act Party’s push to redefine the Treaty principles is not rooted in ignorance, but rather a calculated move to remove a significant barrier to their privatisation and deregulation agenda. The Waitangi Tribunal’s recently released report on the bill describes the legal effect as “remov[ing] Crown obligations under the existing Treaty principles, and remov[ing] Treaty/te Tiriti guarantees, rights, and protections for Māori at law”. including those rights and guarantees that restrict the privatisation of state assets. This is not an unintended side-effect. The Treaty principles, while imperfect, have played a crucial role in safeguarding Māori interests and preventing the unchecked transfer of Crown assets, which benefits everyone in New Zealand. As such, they remain a critical tool for upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ensuring a just and equitable New Zealand." https://lnkd.in/gNeQQi_P

In late March, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its ruling on the appeal of ‘Cindy Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’, an important case which had potentially far-reaching implications for the nation-to-nation relationship between the Crown and self-governing First Nations. Boughton’s Daryn Leas and Jim Coady, K.C., provide a brief summary of the ruling. Learn more -> https://lnkd.in/d9qWuwdC #IndigenousLaw #ConstitutionalLaw #boughtonlaw

EUSS Update: No Appeal Right for Rejected Late Applications Under Withdrawal Agreement In a significant ruling, the High Court dismissed a challenge against the removal of appeal rights for late applications to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) that lack a “good reason” and are thus deemed invalid. This judicial review, brought forward by Here for Good (R (Here for Good) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 2817 (Admin)), argued the case on three grounds related to procedural fairness under the Withdrawal Agreement. The court, however, agreed with the Home Office, concluding that Article 18 supports a two-stage approach—those without a valid application are outside the Withdrawal Agreement’s protection. The court also dismissed the relevance of EU law or Charter rights, as late applicants are not considered eligible under the Agreement's safeguards. With appeal rights removed, judicial review remains the main remedy for those facing rejection. This case underscores the importance of timely applications and may reflect a broader stance on controlling immigration delays and procedural integrity. Read more: https://lnkd.in/ezjmcQJh #EUSS #ImmigrationLaw #WithdrawalAgreement #HomeOffice #JudicialReview #EUSettlementScheme #LegalUpdate