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.  


Dems derided Trump’s midterm gamble — until he ended up winning big
Mail-voting crackdown moves ahead as Trump court win opens door to federal action
Norway’s King Harald dies peacefully at 89, son Crown Prince Haakon to succeed him
New Hampshire man allegedly steals rescue truck from firefighters battling his burning home
Federal judge again blocks Trump’s mail ballot order just before midterms
California authorities identify final unknown victim of ‘Happy Face Killer’ Keith Jesperson after 34 years
New York Gov Hochul rejects Trump’s ‘Lake America’ renaming with blunt message
Maine meteorologist suffers giggle attack on live TV after prank backfires spectacularly
Defense Claims Lindsay Clancy ‘Never Did Anything Wrong in Her Life’ in Closing Argument
Report: Trump Admin Nearing ‘Massive’ Venezuelan Oil Deal
RNC threatens legal action against New Jersey officials over noncitizens on voter rolls: ‘On notice’
Social media erupts after cops reportedly raid home of Ilhan Omar’s son: ‘Not a good look’
Gov Shapiro sues Trump administration over ‘lifesaving reproductive care’ in escalating abortion battle
Watch: Hegseth Rights Another Biden Wrong – Upgrades Abbey Gate Heroes’ Awards After Previous Admin Wrongly Downgraded Them
DHS hits back at James Talarico after Democrat claims ICE ‘kidnapped’ 5-year-old boy deported with father

See also  Enes Kanter Freedom ejected from WNBA game after courtside confrontation with WNBA player

“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.


Dems derided Trump’s midterm gamble — until he ended up winning big
Mail-voting crackdown moves ahead as Trump court win opens door to federal action
Norway’s King Harald dies peacefully at 89, son Crown Prince Haakon to succeed him
New Hampshire man allegedly steals rescue truck from firefighters battling his burning home
Federal judge again blocks Trump’s mail ballot order just before midterms
California authorities identify final unknown victim of ‘Happy Face Killer’ Keith Jesperson after 34 years
New York Gov Hochul rejects Trump’s ‘Lake America’ renaming with blunt message
Maine meteorologist suffers giggle attack on live TV after prank backfires spectacularly
Defense Claims Lindsay Clancy ‘Never Did Anything Wrong in Her Life’ in Closing Argument
Report: Trump Admin Nearing ‘Massive’ Venezuelan Oil Deal
RNC threatens legal action against New Jersey officials over noncitizens on voter rolls: ‘On notice’
Social media erupts after cops reportedly raid home of Ilhan Omar’s son: ‘Not a good look’
Gov Shapiro sues Trump administration over ‘lifesaving reproductive care’ in escalating abortion battle
Watch: Hegseth Rights Another Biden Wrong – Upgrades Abbey Gate Heroes’ Awards After Previous Admin Wrongly Downgraded Them
DHS hits back at James Talarico after Democrat claims ICE ‘kidnapped’ 5-year-old boy deported with father

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  Dolly Parton dies at age 80

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.


Dems derided Trump’s midterm gamble — until he ended up winning big
Mail-voting crackdown moves ahead as Trump court win opens door to federal action
Norway’s King Harald dies peacefully at 89, son Crown Prince Haakon to succeed him
New Hampshire man allegedly steals rescue truck from firefighters battling his burning home
Federal judge again blocks Trump’s mail ballot order just before midterms
California authorities identify final unknown victim of ‘Happy Face Killer’ Keith Jesperson after 34 years
New York Gov Hochul rejects Trump’s ‘Lake America’ renaming with blunt message
Maine meteorologist suffers giggle attack on live TV after prank backfires spectacularly
Defense Claims Lindsay Clancy ‘Never Did Anything Wrong in Her Life’ in Closing Argument
Report: Trump Admin Nearing ‘Massive’ Venezuelan Oil Deal
RNC threatens legal action against New Jersey officials over noncitizens on voter rolls: ‘On notice’
Social media erupts after cops reportedly raid home of Ilhan Omar’s son: ‘Not a good look’
Gov Shapiro sues Trump administration over ‘lifesaving reproductive care’ in escalating abortion battle
Watch: Hegseth Rights Another Biden Wrong – Upgrades Abbey Gate Heroes’ Awards After Previous Admin Wrongly Downgraded Them
DHS hits back at James Talarico after Democrat claims ICE ‘kidnapped’ 5-year-old boy deported with father

See also  A Bayh-gone era for Indiana Democrats?

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