During oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court Tuesday on he future of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program, Justice Sonia Sotomayor injected politics into the discussion, saying President Donald Trump has said he would find a way to keep DACA recipients in the United States but has not done so.
Sotomayor also addressed what other justices cited — the “reliance interests” of DACA recipients, or how the government program has allowed illegal migrants to get Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and work permits that they have come to rely on.
Sotomayor said:
I think my colleagues have rightly pointed [out] there’s a whole lot of reliance interests that weren’t looked at, including the very President of — current President telling DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him and that he would find a way to keep them here. And so he hasn’t and, instead, he’s done this. And that, I think, has something to be considered before you rescind a policy.
“Right,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco said.
GOP senator suggests Fed chair Powell resign now to dodge potential criminal indictment
House Democrats Flip, Join Republicans to Overturn Biden-Era Regulation
Minneapolis-area leaders condemn ICE, call for removal amid Trump deportation campaign
Trump Issues Stern Mandate, Tells Tech Titans They Will Not Run Up American Utility Bills
Johnson: ‘No boots on the ground’ for Trump’s Greenland acquisition plans amid military speculation
Trump flips off Ford factory worker who yelled ‘pedophile protector’
Rubio says US can’t return 137 deported Venezuelans due to ‘delicate’ negotiations with Maduro’s successor
11 House Dems buck party to side with Republicans in reversal of Biden-era shower regulation
College basketball player gunned down on Nashville freeway, police hunting for suspects
‘Dilbert’ Creator and Right-Wing Commentator Scott Adams Dies at Age 68
Iran goes dark as regime unleashes force, cyber tools to crush protests
Afghan illegal immigrant who stabbed sister for being ‘bad Muslim girl’ arrested by ICE agents in New York
Lawmakers warn Philly officials against prosecuting ICE agents: ‘That’s not how America works’
Republican Congressman Forced to Close Office After ‘Credible Threats and Calls for Violence’
Newsom blasts proposed California billionaire tax but keeps door open to national debate
“Not just say I’ll give you six months to do it,” Sotomayer said, referring to Trump’s past announcement that he would hold off on rescinding DACA for six months to allow Congress to come up with a legislative solution.
“And where is the political decision made clearly?” Sotomayor said referring to the June 22, 2018 memorandum issued by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to explain why the department was rescinding DACA.
“That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives,” Sotomayor said, directly expressing what she believed a ruling to end DACA would mean to those enrolled in it.
The back and forth between the justices, Francisco and two attorneys who argued for DACA petitioners — attorney Ted Olson and Michael Mongan, Solicitor General at California Department of Justice – included more discussion about the impact the ruling would have on both DACA recipients and the future enforcement of federal immigration law.
Olson and Mongan argued that the Trump administration did not provide a compelling reason for rescinding DACA, which came to the high court after differing results in lower court decisions on the matter.
GOP senator suggests Fed chair Powell resign now to dodge potential criminal indictment
House Democrats Flip, Join Republicans to Overturn Biden-Era Regulation
Minneapolis-area leaders condemn ICE, call for removal amid Trump deportation campaign
Trump Issues Stern Mandate, Tells Tech Titans They Will Not Run Up American Utility Bills
Johnson: ‘No boots on the ground’ for Trump’s Greenland acquisition plans amid military speculation
Trump flips off Ford factory worker who yelled ‘pedophile protector’
Rubio says US can’t return 137 deported Venezuelans due to ‘delicate’ negotiations with Maduro’s successor
11 House Dems buck party to side with Republicans in reversal of Biden-era shower regulation
College basketball player gunned down on Nashville freeway, police hunting for suspects
‘Dilbert’ Creator and Right-Wing Commentator Scott Adams Dies at Age 68
Iran goes dark as regime unleashes force, cyber tools to crush protests
Afghan illegal immigrant who stabbed sister for being ‘bad Muslim girl’ arrested by ICE agents in New York
Lawmakers warn Philly officials against prosecuting ICE agents: ‘That’s not how America works’
Republican Congressman Forced to Close Office After ‘Credible Threats and Calls for Violence’
Newsom blasts proposed California billionaire tax but keeps door open to national debate
Francisco argued that DACA, put in place by President Barack Obama’s executive action in 2012, was not legal or highly likely to be illegal and it also would “hamstring” federal law enforcement from enforcing immigration law.
But the heart of the case revolves around two issues: Can the courts review the government’s rescission of the DACA program? And was the government’s decision to rescind DACA “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets standards for federal agency actions that are generally enforceable in the courts?
The case analysis by Steven D. Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall School of law noted that “As of 2017, when the government rescinded the program, there were nearly 700,00 active DACA recipients. Their average age was just under 24-years-old. Over 90 percent were employed and 45 percent were in school.”
Many of the groups submitting Amicus briefs in favor of DACA in perpetuity — or forever — were educational institutions and U.S. businesses who benefit from this demographic.
The entities backing DHS were those groups that believe DACA is not constitutional and benefits those in the country illegally while threatening the employment and educational opportunities of citizens.
A ruling in the case is expected in June 2020.
GOP senator suggests Fed chair Powell resign now to dodge potential criminal indictment
House Democrats Flip, Join Republicans to Overturn Biden-Era Regulation
Minneapolis-area leaders condemn ICE, call for removal amid Trump deportation campaign
Trump Issues Stern Mandate, Tells Tech Titans They Will Not Run Up American Utility Bills
Johnson: ‘No boots on the ground’ for Trump’s Greenland acquisition plans amid military speculation
Trump flips off Ford factory worker who yelled ‘pedophile protector’
Rubio says US can’t return 137 deported Venezuelans due to ‘delicate’ negotiations with Maduro’s successor
11 House Dems buck party to side with Republicans in reversal of Biden-era shower regulation
College basketball player gunned down on Nashville freeway, police hunting for suspects
‘Dilbert’ Creator and Right-Wing Commentator Scott Adams Dies at Age 68
Iran goes dark as regime unleashes force, cyber tools to crush protests
Afghan illegal immigrant who stabbed sister for being ‘bad Muslim girl’ arrested by ICE agents in New York
Lawmakers warn Philly officials against prosecuting ICE agents: ‘That’s not how America works’
Republican Congressman Forced to Close Office After ‘Credible Threats and Calls for Violence’
Newsom blasts proposed California billionaire tax but keeps door open to national debate
These cases are Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588, and McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
https://www.scribd.com/document/434685177/SCOTUS
Story cited here.
