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.
BTK killer Dennis Rader’s daughter Kerri Rawson hit with domestic violence injunction: report
Murdered 9-year-old begged not to go on trip with dad months before he allegedly killed her, mom testifies
Daughter of late House Dem forced into runoff after falling short in special election
Mamdani Slammed for ‘Reckless and Foolish’ Doxxing of Thousands of Wealthy New Yorkers
White House Issues Update After High-Stakes Meetings with Netanyahu and Zelenskyy
Putin, Russia put on notice as Senate takes crucial step to grind down the Kremlin’s war machine
Experts scorch Mamdani’s grocery plan as an ‘illusion’ that will have taxpayers footing the bill
Iran has struck 14 Middle Eastern nations. Here’s what they have at stake in the war
Leading economist warns of rise of ‘Gen Z affordability socialism’
Pentagon to Honor Lindsey Graham by Renaming Military Base
Nolan Wells mystery deepens as email indicates teen drank heavily before vanishing
Cracker Barrel CEO Out After Alienating Loyal Customers with Controversial Changes
Trump to award top civilian honor to teenage lifeguard who saved child
Haley Stevens shreds Abdul El-Sayed: ‘We don’t need a celebrity candidate’
Supreme Court denies stays for two Florida death row inmates, clearing path for rare double execution
“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.
BTK killer Dennis Rader’s daughter Kerri Rawson hit with domestic violence injunction: report
Murdered 9-year-old begged not to go on trip with dad months before he allegedly killed her, mom testifies
Daughter of late House Dem forced into runoff after falling short in special election
Mamdani Slammed for ‘Reckless and Foolish’ Doxxing of Thousands of Wealthy New Yorkers
White House Issues Update After High-Stakes Meetings with Netanyahu and Zelenskyy
Putin, Russia put on notice as Senate takes crucial step to grind down the Kremlin’s war machine
Experts scorch Mamdani’s grocery plan as an ‘illusion’ that will have taxpayers footing the bill
Iran has struck 14 Middle Eastern nations. Here’s what they have at stake in the war
Leading economist warns of rise of ‘Gen Z affordability socialism’
Pentagon to Honor Lindsey Graham by Renaming Military Base
Nolan Wells mystery deepens as email indicates teen drank heavily before vanishing
Cracker Barrel CEO Out After Alienating Loyal Customers with Controversial Changes
Trump to award top civilian honor to teenage lifeguard who saved child
Haley Stevens shreds Abdul El-Sayed: ‘We don’t need a celebrity candidate’
Supreme Court denies stays for two Florida death row inmates, clearing path for rare double execution
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.
BTK killer Dennis Rader’s daughter Kerri Rawson hit with domestic violence injunction: report
Murdered 9-year-old begged not to go on trip with dad months before he allegedly killed her, mom testifies
Daughter of late House Dem forced into runoff after falling short in special election
Mamdani Slammed for ‘Reckless and Foolish’ Doxxing of Thousands of Wealthy New Yorkers
White House Issues Update After High-Stakes Meetings with Netanyahu and Zelenskyy
Putin, Russia put on notice as Senate takes crucial step to grind down the Kremlin’s war machine
Experts scorch Mamdani’s grocery plan as an ‘illusion’ that will have taxpayers footing the bill
Iran has struck 14 Middle Eastern nations. Here’s what they have at stake in the war
Leading economist warns of rise of ‘Gen Z affordability socialism’
Pentagon to Honor Lindsey Graham by Renaming Military Base
Nolan Wells mystery deepens as email indicates teen drank heavily before vanishing
Cracker Barrel CEO Out After Alienating Loyal Customers with Controversial Changes
Trump to award top civilian honor to teenage lifeguard who saved child
Haley Stevens shreds Abdul El-Sayed: ‘We don’t need a celebrity candidate’
Supreme Court denies stays for two Florida death row inmates, clearing path for rare double execution
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.
