"The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act."
"The Supreme Court ALLOWS the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as "remain in Mexico." Red states argued that Biden was obliged to keep the policy, but SCOTUS says in a 5-4 ruling that the administration can end it."
Like I just said, I'm not saying I support it (I'm hardly an expert on Murican law), but the difference is that a promise made by the government cannot be easily revoked.
The legislative branch and executive branch in the U.S. have made promises over the years and have subsequently revoked them. It is not like it never happened before.
That is no justification for how differently the Supreme Court ruled when it comes to Trump versus when it comes to Biden.
Never said that this was the first time. But I'm just pointing out that there is a difference. Just to give you an example: in my country, if the prosecutor erroneously sends you a letter informing you that he is not going to prosecute you, he will not be allowed to prosecute you afterwards. Just because the principle is that the people should be able to rely on the words of government officials.
Please bear in mind that I am not saying that this decision is correct, because in my semi-educated opinion, the DACA decision itself was illegal (as I believe Obama thought).
And in a civilized country, the government isn't supposed to be allowed to flagrantly make up illegal shit and then say it would be hard if they were made to undo it so the illegality should stand.
The problem they had is that had they ruled correctly it would have opened up Obama for prosecution and civil suits.