This is a wonderful book thats come out. Just to do a quick introduction, professor of history at the university which coincidentally or maybe not coincidentally is the home of the archives and this is a book that is very personal for her and her journey to getting the buck to publication so something im always fascinated by, how did you get this topic thank you so much for having me. This is the moment in time and all the aviation people on her at the plane expo in oklahoma i went myself and couldnt get anyone to do wit go with me. Somebody pointed out the fact that in the shade of the hangar over there and i thought id will go say hello. He introduced me. Vogels house and into one of my friends has. I decided it was wrong. These are incredible women who developed during world war ii so i set myself on a mission that took 27 years to get here but ive been studying them and telling their story ever since it is definitely part of the war we are interested in but theres been little good
Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l
This is just going to roll, theres nothing specific. Enjoy this as we discussed, this is a wonderful new book that is come out, april 21st, something good to read in this time and just to do a quick introduction, doctor is an associate professor of history at texas will Womans University which home of the national archive. And its very special to talk about her journey to getting the pup under book to publication. And its something im fascinated by, how did you get started on this topic, when did you learn about it and what hooked to win. Thats a great question, thank you so much for having me in talking with me today. I would like to show this picture but this is the moment in time where i met carol and with all the aviation people to know that he was on the coolest either. And from oklahoma in june of 1993, i went by myself and could not get any friends to go with and somebody pointed out the fact that curtis was in the shade of the hanger over there and like i will go say hello, he
Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the
Argument, which took place in november. Argument first this morning in case 18 587, the department of Homeland Security the university of california and the related cases. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, in 20, the dr. Ircuit held that daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded