Exceptions should not become the rule

A federal judge wants Trump to justify the cancellation of the unconstitutionally implemented DACA program.

The backward logic is astounding: Obama signs an EO to keep the parents of illegal aliens from being deported (DAPA), a lower court places an injunction on DAPA thus permitting those here illegally to be deported,  and the case goes to the SCOTUS where a 4-4 decision allows the lower court decision (they may be deported) to stand - thus invalidating DAPA.

But:

Trump wrote an EO canceling DACA, another program established by an Obama EO meant to grant non-deportation, permanent residency, and job permits to children who were brought here illegally when their parents entered illegally.  However, this time, a federal judge won't let Trump cancel DACA without justification.  Hence, this federal judge is forcing the federal government to not deport those here illegally if they are "protected" by DACA

A federal judge is forcing the DOJ to walk away from the enforcement of immigration law.

[This isn't the time or place to get into whether Trump's "travel ban" is legal or not.  That's not even remotely germane to this issue, and I reject and joyfully burn down any such straw man arguments meant as a distraction.  Sorry, but you lose.  Back to the subject at hand.]

The justification for canceling DACA is based in the text of the Constitution itself.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 charges Congress with the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

There's nothing in the Constitution that just as clearly gives the President the ability to create new immigration policies on-the-fly (there are references to specific issues regarding foreign policy).  No text providing a plenary or executive power to exclude a class of individuals from prosecution - as Obama did when he created DAPA and DACA.  Only a law passed by Congress and signed by the President can create and then protect an entire class of immigrants.  An EO can't do that - hence Obama's entirely correct at-the-time declaration that he couldn't do what he did (but he did it anyway - and that's why we're in this mess).

The President is charged to "...take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...".  By canceling an EO that usurped the power of Congress to make immigration law, Trump is executing his job as President.  He is ensuring that the laws are "faithfully executed".

The old adage goes, "if you don't like the law, change it".

In fact, Trump tried to change it.  He tried to work with the Democrats to pass a law protecting those eligible under DACA.  In return, Trump wanted to make (to borrow the anti-gun activist term) "common sense reforms" to immigration law as well as build a barrier to (mostly) prevent future illegal entries into the United States.

The Democrats told Trump to go pound sand (appropriate, considering much of the land on the southern border of the US).

Having been rebuffed after trying to do what he felt was right, Trump decided to obey the law - and now a judge has told him to violate his oath of office by not enforcing the laws of the United States.

The President can make the easy case that excusing an entire class of lawbreakers from being charged - regardless of the crime - is beyond "prosecutorial discretion".  Let's be clear here: illegally entering the United States is a crime.  Hence, even though DACA and DAPA selectees may be good people and may make good citizens, they are here illegally.  In some cases ("job permits" - remember?), they're taking up the spot of someone who wants to come here legally and has been waiting in line for their chance to enter the United States and eventually become a citizen.

Rewarding lawbreakers sets a bad precedent: if we do not enforce a law, then why should we enforce any laws?  Telling Trump and the DOJ that they may not enforce this law is tantamount to saying that there are no laws that may be enforced.

I fully support the prerogative of prosecutorial discretion.  However, it must be taken on a case-by-case basis and not because someone has been declared to be a member of a "class".  Otherwise the precedent "why me and not that person" can become a nightmarish but legitimate defense.

If the White House legal staff can't make an argument that "Congress passes law - the Executive enforces it" in front of the judge, then they all should resign and go home.

And the judge who directed the administration to violate the law should be censured.