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.
El-Sayed’s Jewish outreach ignites ‘tokenism’ fury as Michigan GOP chair makes bold prediction
Outgoing House Democrat backs incumbent Republican lawmaker for re-election
Vance’s midterm message: Don’t elect ‘crazy people’ responsible for higher prices
Hope: Remember How the 2018 Blue Wave Fizzled? Turns Out Dems’ 2026 Numbers Aren’t Even Half What They Were Then
Mamdani tells Trump banned White House outlets are welcome at NYC meeting
Maryland hunter’s alleged mistake leaves Delaware mother dead
Deer Hunter Arrested and Charged with Manslaughter After Fatal Mistake
Man Convicted of Murdering Two Teenage Girls Blames ‘Pagan Ritual’ in New Appeal
Watch for Yourself: Dem Gov. Brags She’s Sending People to Homes of Every New Baby to ‘Make an Assessment’ of the Situation
Trump says Mamdani ‘off to a start,’ has ‘great potential’ in visit to mayor’s mansion
Socialist, communist groups coordinate, promote ‘spontaneous’ anti-ICE protests in Austin
Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Files for Official Investigation Into Holdout Juror
Watch: Trumpeter Improvises to Deliver ‘Most Iconic’ Anthem Performance After Instrument Malfunctions Mid-Song
Watch: Dana Bash ‘At a Loss for Words’ Over CNN Ban at WH, But Then Video of CNN Suggesting WH Ban Fox News Surfaces
Vermont man convicted of attempted murder in shooting of three Palestinian students
“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.
El-Sayed’s Jewish outreach ignites ‘tokenism’ fury as Michigan GOP chair makes bold prediction
Outgoing House Democrat backs incumbent Republican lawmaker for re-election
Vance’s midterm message: Don’t elect ‘crazy people’ responsible for higher prices
Hope: Remember How the 2018 Blue Wave Fizzled? Turns Out Dems’ 2026 Numbers Aren’t Even Half What They Were Then
Mamdani tells Trump banned White House outlets are welcome at NYC meeting
Maryland hunter’s alleged mistake leaves Delaware mother dead
Deer Hunter Arrested and Charged with Manslaughter After Fatal Mistake
Man Convicted of Murdering Two Teenage Girls Blames ‘Pagan Ritual’ in New Appeal
Watch for Yourself: Dem Gov. Brags She’s Sending People to Homes of Every New Baby to ‘Make an Assessment’ of the Situation
Trump says Mamdani ‘off to a start,’ has ‘great potential’ in visit to mayor’s mansion
Socialist, communist groups coordinate, promote ‘spontaneous’ anti-ICE protests in Austin
Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Files for Official Investigation Into Holdout Juror
Watch: Trumpeter Improvises to Deliver ‘Most Iconic’ Anthem Performance After Instrument Malfunctions Mid-Song
Watch: Dana Bash ‘At a Loss for Words’ Over CNN Ban at WH, But Then Video of CNN Suggesting WH Ban Fox News Surfaces
Vermont man convicted of attempted murder in shooting of three Palestinian students
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.
El-Sayed’s Jewish outreach ignites ‘tokenism’ fury as Michigan GOP chair makes bold prediction
Outgoing House Democrat backs incumbent Republican lawmaker for re-election
Vance’s midterm message: Don’t elect ‘crazy people’ responsible for higher prices
Hope: Remember How the 2018 Blue Wave Fizzled? Turns Out Dems’ 2026 Numbers Aren’t Even Half What They Were Then
Mamdani tells Trump banned White House outlets are welcome at NYC meeting
Maryland hunter’s alleged mistake leaves Delaware mother dead
Deer Hunter Arrested and Charged with Manslaughter After Fatal Mistake
Man Convicted of Murdering Two Teenage Girls Blames ‘Pagan Ritual’ in New Appeal
Watch for Yourself: Dem Gov. Brags She’s Sending People to Homes of Every New Baby to ‘Make an Assessment’ of the Situation
Trump says Mamdani ‘off to a start,’ has ‘great potential’ in visit to mayor’s mansion
Socialist, communist groups coordinate, promote ‘spontaneous’ anti-ICE protests in Austin
Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Files for Official Investigation Into Holdout Juror
Watch: Trumpeter Improvises to Deliver ‘Most Iconic’ Anthem Performance After Instrument Malfunctions Mid-Song
Watch: Dana Bash ‘At a Loss for Words’ Over CNN Ban at WH, But Then Video of CNN Suggesting WH Ban Fox News Surfaces
Vermont man convicted of attempted murder in shooting of three Palestinian students
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.
