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.
Pittsburgh doctor stabbed to death after intruder allegedly attacks him, wife as they slept: police
New Jersey Gov Mikie Sherrill calls on lieutenant governor to resign after sexual harassment investigation
FBI says source of its jobs portal breach still unknown as hackers allege employee data compromised
Michigan nurse accused of breaking bones and bruising premature infant at children’s hospital
Xi can’t escape protesters’ cries at deafening dinner demonstration
College Basketball Coach-Turned ESPN Personality Dies at 47
Watch: Xi Descends Into Laughter as Trump Shows off ‘President Autopen’ Picture in Place of Joe Biden’s Portrait
Talarico, Buoyed by Strong Gen Z Support, Leads Paxton Outside Margin of Error in New Poll
DOJ announces $25 million ANGEL grant program as it hosts violent crime victims
Unearthed clip exposes clash between El-Sayed and ex-GOP rival: ‘Muslims definitely hate you’
What’s on the menu for Trump’s state dinner with China’s Xi? One American staple is notably missing
Watch: ‘Oh, My God! Why Are We Saying “Free Palestine” Then?’ LGBT Activist Learns Muslims She’s Cheering for Hate Gays
Angel mom says blue state DAs are putting illegal immigrant criminals before public safety
Breaking: Man Wounded During Trump Assassination Attempt in Butler Dies 2 Years Later at 76
Netanyahu fires in all directions at UN, rebuking critics for ‘lies about my country’ as scores of delegates walk out
“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.
Pittsburgh doctor stabbed to death after intruder allegedly attacks him, wife as they slept: police
New Jersey Gov Mikie Sherrill calls on lieutenant governor to resign after sexual harassment investigation
FBI says source of its jobs portal breach still unknown as hackers allege employee data compromised
Michigan nurse accused of breaking bones and bruising premature infant at children’s hospital
Xi can’t escape protesters’ cries at deafening dinner demonstration
College Basketball Coach-Turned ESPN Personality Dies at 47
Watch: Xi Descends Into Laughter as Trump Shows off ‘President Autopen’ Picture in Place of Joe Biden’s Portrait
Talarico, Buoyed by Strong Gen Z Support, Leads Paxton Outside Margin of Error in New Poll
DOJ announces $25 million ANGEL grant program as it hosts violent crime victims
Unearthed clip exposes clash between El-Sayed and ex-GOP rival: ‘Muslims definitely hate you’
What’s on the menu for Trump’s state dinner with China’s Xi? One American staple is notably missing
Watch: ‘Oh, My God! Why Are We Saying “Free Palestine” Then?’ LGBT Activist Learns Muslims She’s Cheering for Hate Gays
Angel mom says blue state DAs are putting illegal immigrant criminals before public safety
Breaking: Man Wounded During Trump Assassination Attempt in Butler Dies 2 Years Later at 76
Netanyahu fires in all directions at UN, rebuking critics for ‘lies about my country’ as scores of delegates walk out
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.
Pittsburgh doctor stabbed to death after intruder allegedly attacks him, wife as they slept: police
New Jersey Gov Mikie Sherrill calls on lieutenant governor to resign after sexual harassment investigation
FBI says source of its jobs portal breach still unknown as hackers allege employee data compromised
Michigan nurse accused of breaking bones and bruising premature infant at children’s hospital
Xi can’t escape protesters’ cries at deafening dinner demonstration
College Basketball Coach-Turned ESPN Personality Dies at 47
Watch: Xi Descends Into Laughter as Trump Shows off ‘President Autopen’ Picture in Place of Joe Biden’s Portrait
Talarico, Buoyed by Strong Gen Z Support, Leads Paxton Outside Margin of Error in New Poll
DOJ announces $25 million ANGEL grant program as it hosts violent crime victims
Unearthed clip exposes clash between El-Sayed and ex-GOP rival: ‘Muslims definitely hate you’
What’s on the menu for Trump’s state dinner with China’s Xi? One American staple is notably missing
Watch: ‘Oh, My God! Why Are We Saying “Free Palestine” Then?’ LGBT Activist Learns Muslims She’s Cheering for Hate Gays
Angel mom says blue state DAs are putting illegal immigrant criminals before public safety
Breaking: Man Wounded During Trump Assassination Attempt in Butler Dies 2 Years Later at 76
Netanyahu fires in all directions at UN, rebuking critics for ‘lies about my country’ as scores of delegates walk out
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.
