1. YEAR
  2. 2019
  3. 2018
  4. 2017
  5. 2016
  6. 2015
  7. 2014
  8. 2013
  9. 2012
  10. 2011
  11. 2010
  12. 2009
  • « Back
    04.27.18 Professor William Araiza Discusses Travel Ban and DACA with RNN TV
    Bill Araiza

    Professor William Araiza was interviewed about legal developments in two of the most important matters currently being addressed by the U.S. court system—the Trump Administration’s 15-month old travel ban and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—on the Emmy Award-winning public affairs program, “Richard French Live,” on RNN news network.

    Speaking with host Richard French about the potential outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the travel ban, Araiza said the Court seems willing to let the administration make its own determination in the name of national security. “There was hard questioning on both sides, but I think there is great reluctance on the part of the Court—particularly Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts—about second guessing the executive branch when it comes to the President’s national security determinations,” he said.

    The government’s position suggests that any discrimination, no matter how overtly biased, would be justifiable in the name of national security. Although Araiza thinks it is the only way the administration could argue the matter without opening the door to some level of questioning about its national security decisions, he is troubled by the Court’s stance. “If that’s where the Court goes on this, then it’s very difficult to see how the President doesn’t have the authority to act on bias,” he said.

    Araiza also discussed the recent DACA ruling by Judge John D. Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, which concluded that the wind-down of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" because the Department of Homeland Security failed to "adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful." The judge called the administration’s decision “unlawful” and accused the government of providing "meager legal reasoning" to support its decision.

    “It is a foundational requirement of administrative law that government agencies, for example the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice, explain their decisions. The fact of the matter is the DOJ simply did not explain its decision adequately, even though it surely had advanced warning that it would be asked to do so,” said Araiza. “It’s rather surprising, but part of a general pattern of this administration to not have its ducks in a row when it takes administrative regulatory action.”

    Araiza is a widely published expert on constitutional law and administrative law. In his recent book, Animus: A Short Introduction to Bias in the Law (NYU Press, 2017), he advances a structure that can guide courts in deciding if a government action is grounded in animus. He is also the author of  Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause: Congressional Power, Judicial Doctrine, and Constitutional Law (NYU Press, 2016).

    "Richard French Live," which reaches 6.5 million viewers across the Tri-State area, features discussions of news, the law, and public policy with national and regional politicians, pundits, personalities, and other newsmakers.

    Watch the interview:
    Richard French Live – Brooklyn Law School Professor William Araiza discusses the SCOTUS travel ban hearing and federal court ruling on DACA