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.
Minnesota official’s voter guide message on Somali TV triggers viral backlash: ‘Not an accident’
US dual citizen extradited to El Salvador, accused of killing son’s mother and abandoning toddler: DOJ
Harris pushes Georgia Democrats to turn ‘pain into purpose’ in fight against ‘tyrant’ Trump
Watch: Shattered Glass on Ground as DOJ Agents Hit Minneapolis Fraudsters Hard, Launching Multiple Simultaneous Raids Around City
Trump Admin Exposes North Korean Tech-Hiring Scam, US Companies Were Funding the Country’s Weapons
National Democrats leave Mary Peltola to fend for herself amid Alaska Senate scandal
Breaking: Sir Patrick Stewart, Legend from Star Trek and X-Men, Has Died Due to Previously Undisclosed Health Issues
Judge grills AG’s office in Cornell sex assault case as ex-frat bro’s lawyer demands ouster over alleged bias
9 Alleged Cartel-Linked Train Bandits Arrested in California
Dem probes could ‘torture’ young Trump officials with crushing legal bills, subpoenaed conservative warns
Woman shot outside Virginia GOP headquarters in Richmond, party confirms
Report on alleged ‘second Dan Sullivan’ effort emerges after nearly 1 in 10 Alaskans voted
Why Lula’s reelection in Brazil is ‘not gonna make democratizing Cuba any easier’
Dead felon voting controversy grows as ‘Betty No Last Name’ surfaces in Spanberger’s rights restoration push
Bombshell: Ex-Wife Levels New Rape, Incest Accusations at Hugh Hefner, the Man Who Mainstreamed Pornography
“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.
Minnesota official’s voter guide message on Somali TV triggers viral backlash: ‘Not an accident’
US dual citizen extradited to El Salvador, accused of killing son’s mother and abandoning toddler: DOJ
Harris pushes Georgia Democrats to turn ‘pain into purpose’ in fight against ‘tyrant’ Trump
Watch: Shattered Glass on Ground as DOJ Agents Hit Minneapolis Fraudsters Hard, Launching Multiple Simultaneous Raids Around City
Trump Admin Exposes North Korean Tech-Hiring Scam, US Companies Were Funding the Country’s Weapons
National Democrats leave Mary Peltola to fend for herself amid Alaska Senate scandal
Breaking: Sir Patrick Stewart, Legend from Star Trek and X-Men, Has Died Due to Previously Undisclosed Health Issues
Judge grills AG’s office in Cornell sex assault case as ex-frat bro’s lawyer demands ouster over alleged bias
9 Alleged Cartel-Linked Train Bandits Arrested in California
Dem probes could ‘torture’ young Trump officials with crushing legal bills, subpoenaed conservative warns
Woman shot outside Virginia GOP headquarters in Richmond, party confirms
Report on alleged ‘second Dan Sullivan’ effort emerges after nearly 1 in 10 Alaskans voted
Why Lula’s reelection in Brazil is ‘not gonna make democratizing Cuba any easier’
Dead felon voting controversy grows as ‘Betty No Last Name’ surfaces in Spanberger’s rights restoration push
Bombshell: Ex-Wife Levels New Rape, Incest Accusations at Hugh Hefner, the Man Who Mainstreamed Pornography
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.
Minnesota official’s voter guide message on Somali TV triggers viral backlash: ‘Not an accident’
US dual citizen extradited to El Salvador, accused of killing son’s mother and abandoning toddler: DOJ
Harris pushes Georgia Democrats to turn ‘pain into purpose’ in fight against ‘tyrant’ Trump
Watch: Shattered Glass on Ground as DOJ Agents Hit Minneapolis Fraudsters Hard, Launching Multiple Simultaneous Raids Around City
Trump Admin Exposes North Korean Tech-Hiring Scam, US Companies Were Funding the Country’s Weapons
National Democrats leave Mary Peltola to fend for herself amid Alaska Senate scandal
Breaking: Sir Patrick Stewart, Legend from Star Trek and X-Men, Has Died Due to Previously Undisclosed Health Issues
Judge grills AG’s office in Cornell sex assault case as ex-frat bro’s lawyer demands ouster over alleged bias
9 Alleged Cartel-Linked Train Bandits Arrested in California
Dem probes could ‘torture’ young Trump officials with crushing legal bills, subpoenaed conservative warns
Woman shot outside Virginia GOP headquarters in Richmond, party confirms
Report on alleged ‘second Dan Sullivan’ effort emerges after nearly 1 in 10 Alaskans voted
Why Lula’s reelection in Brazil is ‘not gonna make democratizing Cuba any easier’
Dead felon voting controversy grows as ‘Betty No Last Name’ surfaces in Spanberger’s rights restoration push
Bombshell: Ex-Wife Levels New Rape, Incest Accusations at Hugh Hefner, the Man Who Mainstreamed Pornography
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.
