I'm Charlie Pellett the Dow the NASDAQ all advancing stocks higher is results, lifted berkshire-hathaway, higher oil prices boosting energy producers right now west Texas intermediate crude up one and a. Half percent sixty nine fifty one four barrel. Of WTI gold. Is down, four tenths of one percent twelve o nine the. Ounce, the tenure of three. Thirty seconds yield two point nine three percent. SNP up eleven higher by four tenths of one percent the Dow up fifty five, up two, tenths of one percent NASDAQ up forty three a gain narrow of six tenths of one percent should mention that the Dow the s&p. NASDAQ all at. Or near their highs of the. Session I'm Charlie pelletan, that is a Bloomberg business flash thanks Charlie on Friday the California federal judge presiding over the reunification of immigrant children separated from their, parents called the government, efforts unacceptable. Earlier in the week. Senate Judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley also Also criticized the administration's policies our like many well intentioned, policies these were there, were unintended consequences And in another federal courtroom on Friday on the opposite, side of the country a judge upheld his order that the DACA program should be fully restored giving the. Administration twenty days to appeal joining me is David. Beer immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute David turning to the federal. Court room in DC judge John Bates gave the Trump administration a second chance to show him there was a legitimate reason to rescind DACA, tell us what. He, asked the. Administration and what the administration provided Well when the administration I rescinded DACA for the dreamer sue immigrants who entered the United States as children They did not explain why they believed that that was a proper, decision for the government t- taking and so what the court found with this decision was arbitrary and capricious did not have a basis in law and the judge required the administration to reissue that memo recinding. That policy or provide the court with a valid legal reasons why it believed that that policy was unlawful. The government really failed to do that in the decision from the judge really lays out in detail lie. The court felt that the department of homeland security. Has, not shown why they are are taking this action, so the judge didn't say that the DHS secretary Didn't have a thirty to rescind the program so if the Trump administration which is expected. To appeal can come up with a better explanation with a good explanation is it possible that the judge. Will rescind the order or that the court will Well this point really the appeals court is going to be looking at whether or not the judge had used his. Discretion in this case, to basically, enjoying the memos that department of homeland security has put. Out so that the really going to be ruling on whether or not. D h s had provided the courts with an candidate reason? So they could overturn but at this point you know providing new rationales is not going. To help the administration it's going to be decided based on what they've already put out there and what's your legal. Opinion about what they've put out there do you think it can sustain an appeal Well I would be surprised that this went to the supreme court the supreme court did. Not, uphold the determinations, by the department of homeland security I mean when this policy was rolled out was done without going through the regulatory process this is always been, an agency you know the types of decisions that agencies have routinely taken based on their own discretion without judicial review and it's somewhat surprising that the the administration has so far been unable to. Convince any court across, the country, that they actually have the ability to do this without. Providing a detailed explanation of of their decision and part of the reason. Why they've had so much trouble is that they tried to? Say that they're not doing this for policy He. Reasons it's not that they don't want DACA exist it's that they believe it. DACA is, illegal and that is what the judge continuously came back to you and said, you'd never explained why you think. It's illegal and your vacations for why you think so don't hold any water so why not tell us, the real reasons that you're doing that and they failed again to provide the real reasons for them taking action now there have been previous court rulings in California and New York there's another case pending in Texas. Which may find the program to be unconstitutional the ninth circuit is going to issue a decision how do all these cases fit together It's really all of these cases so far, have pointed in the same direction that you know really the administration has, done a very poor job in how they justified the decision to rescind DACA and of course you may know. That be court in Texas is also looking at this this is the same court that struck down the Obama administration's expansion of the DACA. Program, to parents of of of American born children and he is. Likely to strike down DACA based, on the reasoning that he provided back in. Twenty fifteen and so we could have conflicting decisions. Both in DC in Texas and California One requiring the administration to continue Dhaka and the other one's the other one in Texas striking it down so that, will, lead to the supreme court intervening and deciding the issue wanted grow and you think the supreme. Court will uphold, the government's position I expected the supreme court will side with didn't instruction. On this issue despite the fact that Moore lower courts have gone against the admitted the administration that's right because well I think the, reason is that as I explained before many agency actions similar to this one have been taken in the. Past and have been allowed to stand particularly decisions about whether or not to Issue certain benefits on a discretionary basis or within certain administrative actions such as know a program for people Not want to remove David we run out of time it's always great, to have you on that's David, beer immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute coming up, on, Bloomberg politics. Policy President Trump's inaction, on infrastructure a new ad campaign that's coming up.