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.
DOJ weighing possible new indictments for Comey and James: Reports
Trump-backed Republican keeps crucial congressional seat in GOP hands with special election victory
NYC alleged dine-and-dash influencer Pei Chung evicted from luxury apartment as she sits in jail
Illegal immigrant gang member killed police K-9 ‘Spike’ before officers returned fire in California: source
Indiana redistricting bill clears committee, heads to full House for vote
Young progressive beats out establishment candidate in Jersey City mayoral race, echoing Mamdani
GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik Says She Caught Mike Johnson Telling ‘Lies’ and Secretly ‘Siding with Jamie Raskin’
Breaking: Trump Officially Invalidates All Documents Signed by Biden Autopen, Including Pardons – Fauci, Hunter Biden Now Vulnerable
Watch: The Fieriest Trump Comments in History Just Came Out During Cabinet Meeting – POTUS Utterly Scorched Omar and Somalis, Calling Them ‘Garbage’ from ‘Stinking Country’
Pope Leo urges Trump to de-escalate tensions with Venezuela and turn to dialogue
Trump doubles down on voiding Biden autopen actions, including pardons and commutations
Video: Can You Spot What German Cities Added to Their Christmas Markets After Muslim Migrants Flooded the Country?
Top expert exposes how elites are encouraging immigrants to not assimilate into American culture
Witkoff and Kushner leave Kremlin after nearly five hours of negotiation with Putin
Trump hails $6 billion generosity of Dell family, teases more investors for ‘trust fund’ for American children
“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.
DOJ weighing possible new indictments for Comey and James: Reports
Trump-backed Republican keeps crucial congressional seat in GOP hands with special election victory
NYC alleged dine-and-dash influencer Pei Chung evicted from luxury apartment as she sits in jail
Illegal immigrant gang member killed police K-9 ‘Spike’ before officers returned fire in California: source
Indiana redistricting bill clears committee, heads to full House for vote
Young progressive beats out establishment candidate in Jersey City mayoral race, echoing Mamdani
GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik Says She Caught Mike Johnson Telling ‘Lies’ and Secretly ‘Siding with Jamie Raskin’
Breaking: Trump Officially Invalidates All Documents Signed by Biden Autopen, Including Pardons – Fauci, Hunter Biden Now Vulnerable
Watch: The Fieriest Trump Comments in History Just Came Out During Cabinet Meeting – POTUS Utterly Scorched Omar and Somalis, Calling Them ‘Garbage’ from ‘Stinking Country’
Pope Leo urges Trump to de-escalate tensions with Venezuela and turn to dialogue
Trump doubles down on voiding Biden autopen actions, including pardons and commutations
Video: Can You Spot What German Cities Added to Their Christmas Markets After Muslim Migrants Flooded the Country?
Top expert exposes how elites are encouraging immigrants to not assimilate into American culture
Witkoff and Kushner leave Kremlin after nearly five hours of negotiation with Putin
Trump hails $6 billion generosity of Dell family, teases more investors for ‘trust fund’ for American children
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.
DOJ weighing possible new indictments for Comey and James: Reports
Trump-backed Republican keeps crucial congressional seat in GOP hands with special election victory
NYC alleged dine-and-dash influencer Pei Chung evicted from luxury apartment as she sits in jail
Illegal immigrant gang member killed police K-9 ‘Spike’ before officers returned fire in California: source
Indiana redistricting bill clears committee, heads to full House for vote
Young progressive beats out establishment candidate in Jersey City mayoral race, echoing Mamdani
GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik Says She Caught Mike Johnson Telling ‘Lies’ and Secretly ‘Siding with Jamie Raskin’
Breaking: Trump Officially Invalidates All Documents Signed by Biden Autopen, Including Pardons – Fauci, Hunter Biden Now Vulnerable
Watch: The Fieriest Trump Comments in History Just Came Out During Cabinet Meeting – POTUS Utterly Scorched Omar and Somalis, Calling Them ‘Garbage’ from ‘Stinking Country’
Pope Leo urges Trump to de-escalate tensions with Venezuela and turn to dialogue
Trump doubles down on voiding Biden autopen actions, including pardons and commutations
Video: Can You Spot What German Cities Added to Their Christmas Markets After Muslim Migrants Flooded the Country?
Top expert exposes how elites are encouraging immigrants to not assimilate into American culture
Witkoff and Kushner leave Kremlin after nearly five hours of negotiation with Putin
Trump hails $6 billion generosity of Dell family, teases more investors for ‘trust fund’ for American children
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.
