International News Opinons Politics Southern Border

Sotomayor at DACA Oral Arguments: ‘This Is About Our Choice to Destroy Lives’

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.  


New Jersey middle school teacher charged with child sex assault after alleged sexual relationship with student
Appeals court pauses orders limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas at protests near Portland ICE building
United jet dodges Black Hawk in last-second maneuver over California airport: ‘That was not good’
BREAKING: Trump Ends DHS Payment Freeze Without Congress, Issues Immediate Orders to New DHS Sec. Markwayne Mullin
Schumer, Dems block DHS funding again as Trump intervenes to pay TSA agents
Nancy Mace Poised to Side with Democrats to Pass War Powers Resolution: ‘War with Iran Needs to End’
Elon Musk demands judge’s recusal after latest flare-up over alleged bias
Trump declares national emergency at airports, to sign order instructing DHS to ‘immediately pay’ TSA officers
CPAC 2026 cools on Trump 2028 campaign
Alert: Olympic Committee Steps up to Protect Women, Bans Trans Athletes from Female Events
Treasury to place Trump’s signature on paper currency to mark nation’s 250th anniversary
Bombshell Report: US Intel Finds Ukrainian Messages Detailing Plot to Swing Election Toward Biden
Andy Barr seeks to thwart ‘patently false’ Kentucky Senate ad with cease and desist
‘Orwellian’ Biden-era censorship reined in; red states celebrate ‘historic’ settlement
Netflix Denies Exec Called Muslims ‘Dangerous People’ After Reportedly Asking Comic to Cut Islam Joke

See also  Jewish voters feel ‘politically homeless’ as antisemitism rises on both sides

“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.


New Jersey middle school teacher charged with child sex assault after alleged sexual relationship with student
Appeals court pauses orders limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas at protests near Portland ICE building
United jet dodges Black Hawk in last-second maneuver over California airport: ‘That was not good’
BREAKING: Trump Ends DHS Payment Freeze Without Congress, Issues Immediate Orders to New DHS Sec. Markwayne Mullin
Schumer, Dems block DHS funding again as Trump intervenes to pay TSA agents
Nancy Mace Poised to Side with Democrats to Pass War Powers Resolution: ‘War with Iran Needs to End’
Elon Musk demands judge’s recusal after latest flare-up over alleged bias
Trump declares national emergency at airports, to sign order instructing DHS to ‘immediately pay’ TSA officers
CPAC 2026 cools on Trump 2028 campaign
Alert: Olympic Committee Steps up to Protect Women, Bans Trans Athletes from Female Events
Treasury to place Trump’s signature on paper currency to mark nation’s 250th anniversary
Bombshell Report: US Intel Finds Ukrainian Messages Detailing Plot to Swing Election Toward Biden
Andy Barr seeks to thwart ‘patently false’ Kentucky Senate ad with cease and desist
‘Orwellian’ Biden-era censorship reined in; red states celebrate ‘historic’ settlement
Netflix Denies Exec Called Muslims ‘Dangerous People’ After Reportedly Asking Comic to Cut Islam Joke

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.

See also  Fox News poll gives Trump highest disapproval rating across both his terms

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.


New Jersey middle school teacher charged with child sex assault after alleged sexual relationship with student
Appeals court pauses orders limiting federal agents’ use of tear gas at protests near Portland ICE building
United jet dodges Black Hawk in last-second maneuver over California airport: ‘That was not good’
BREAKING: Trump Ends DHS Payment Freeze Without Congress, Issues Immediate Orders to New DHS Sec. Markwayne Mullin
Schumer, Dems block DHS funding again as Trump intervenes to pay TSA agents
Nancy Mace Poised to Side with Democrats to Pass War Powers Resolution: ‘War with Iran Needs to End’
Elon Musk demands judge’s recusal after latest flare-up over alleged bias
Trump declares national emergency at airports, to sign order instructing DHS to ‘immediately pay’ TSA officers
CPAC 2026 cools on Trump 2028 campaign
Alert: Olympic Committee Steps up to Protect Women, Bans Trans Athletes from Female Events
Treasury to place Trump’s signature on paper currency to mark nation’s 250th anniversary
Bombshell Report: US Intel Finds Ukrainian Messages Detailing Plot to Swing Election Toward Biden
Andy Barr seeks to thwart ‘patently false’ Kentucky Senate ad with cease and desist
‘Orwellian’ Biden-era censorship reined in; red states celebrate ‘historic’ settlement
Netflix Denies Exec Called Muslims ‘Dangerous People’ After Reportedly Asking Comic to Cut Islam Joke

See also  IDF claims it struck Iranian senior officials’ headquarters in airstrikes

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.

Share this article:
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter