USSC to hear the DACA case...

There is a ton of back and forth on this one, but it would be awful hard to see how the USSC rules against the Administration. The argument (coming from the left) is that the Courts need to control how much a new Administration can "undo" policies enacted by a previous Administration (as if that actually involves a legal principle). The goal appears to be to enhance and expand the idea of "arbitrary decisions" to include anything that the left disagrees with.

The truth is that DACA was not, is not, and never has been a law. It was an executive order, or and executive guidance (as it was) that makes a determination as to how we enforce our immigration laws. While a President obviously has brought latitude as to how to enforce the law, there has never ever been any constitutional authority for one President to declare that their own policies to be permanent. 

In fact, a similar executive order (DAPA) was declared unconstitutional by the courts, and by a fairly broad consensus there is every reason to believe that a similar ruling against DACA would follow. There were court cases pending, but were placed on hold when the decision was made to shut down DACA. 

But this isn't even what this is about. The lawsuit was filed (not to stop DACA from being declared unconstitutional), but rather to prevent the President from changing a previous President's policies on how to enforce immigration law. A policy that probably is unconstitutional to begin with.

Under normal circumstances nobody would bring this sort of suit, and no Judge would rule in favor of it. The idea that a President can declare an executive guidance or executive action and by some means force all future executives to follow the same guidance or action is nonsensical. The only argument (again) would be that the President's decision was arbitrary. But ending a program that was already controversial and under legal siege should be reason enough. If not, the argument that these decisions are Congressional decisions (and thus the previous Administration overstepped their boundaries) is another lucid argument that has been made.

To be clear, the President doesn't need to answer policy questions or defend political viewpoints to a judge. A judge who disagrees with the President as a matter of policy or politics is not the same thing a President making an arbitrary decision. But that appears to be the strategy from the left. Find liberal Justices willing to bend and mold the law in order to fit their partisan political viewpoints.