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.
Missing Summer Wells’ father arrested on domestic assault charge in Tennessee
Mystery woman sought after American found dead in Costa Rican tourist destination
Watch: Kathy Hochul Stumbles in Debate Opening Statement and Republican Opponent Bruce Blakeman Pounces
The Houthis Are Receiving Help Directly from China as They Attempt to Build Their Own Game-Changing Weapon: Report
Trump says ‘we are looking into’ other Dan Sullivan on Alaska ballot, warns about governor’s race
New York governor debate heats up as Blakeman, Hochul spar over Trump, sanctuary status, ICE shooting
Does anyone want to win this race? Talarico and Paxton stumble to finish line in Texas Senate contest
‘Tsunami of Republican Money’ Could Turn Midterms Upside Down, Says Top Democrat
NY Dem Congressional Candidate Wants Cornell 7’s ‘Severed Heads on Pikes,’ Ignores That There’s Been No Trial
99,000 arrested at Mexican border in Trump’s first year versus two million in Biden’s year one
Schumer warns of Republican advantage that could change the battle for Senate control
Democrats have ‘dirty hands’ over complaints about Omar raid weeks before election, ex-prosecutor says
Trump announces massive oil, gas and mineral exploration plans in Greenland, touts national security benefits
Trump administration slashes time refugees have to challenge loss of legal status
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he won’t fire NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch despite socialist pressure
“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.
Missing Summer Wells’ father arrested on domestic assault charge in Tennessee
Mystery woman sought after American found dead in Costa Rican tourist destination
Watch: Kathy Hochul Stumbles in Debate Opening Statement and Republican Opponent Bruce Blakeman Pounces
The Houthis Are Receiving Help Directly from China as They Attempt to Build Their Own Game-Changing Weapon: Report
Trump says ‘we are looking into’ other Dan Sullivan on Alaska ballot, warns about governor’s race
New York governor debate heats up as Blakeman, Hochul spar over Trump, sanctuary status, ICE shooting
Does anyone want to win this race? Talarico and Paxton stumble to finish line in Texas Senate contest
‘Tsunami of Republican Money’ Could Turn Midterms Upside Down, Says Top Democrat
NY Dem Congressional Candidate Wants Cornell 7’s ‘Severed Heads on Pikes,’ Ignores That There’s Been No Trial
99,000 arrested at Mexican border in Trump’s first year versus two million in Biden’s year one
Schumer warns of Republican advantage that could change the battle for Senate control
Democrats have ‘dirty hands’ over complaints about Omar raid weeks before election, ex-prosecutor says
Trump announces massive oil, gas and mineral exploration plans in Greenland, touts national security benefits
Trump administration slashes time refugees have to challenge loss of legal status
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he won’t fire NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch despite socialist pressure
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.
Missing Summer Wells’ father arrested on domestic assault charge in Tennessee
Mystery woman sought after American found dead in Costa Rican tourist destination
Watch: Kathy Hochul Stumbles in Debate Opening Statement and Republican Opponent Bruce Blakeman Pounces
The Houthis Are Receiving Help Directly from China as They Attempt to Build Their Own Game-Changing Weapon: Report
Trump says ‘we are looking into’ other Dan Sullivan on Alaska ballot, warns about governor’s race
New York governor debate heats up as Blakeman, Hochul spar over Trump, sanctuary status, ICE shooting
Does anyone want to win this race? Talarico and Paxton stumble to finish line in Texas Senate contest
‘Tsunami of Republican Money’ Could Turn Midterms Upside Down, Says Top Democrat
NY Dem Congressional Candidate Wants Cornell 7’s ‘Severed Heads on Pikes,’ Ignores That There’s Been No Trial
99,000 arrested at Mexican border in Trump’s first year versus two million in Biden’s year one
Schumer warns of Republican advantage that could change the battle for Senate control
Democrats have ‘dirty hands’ over complaints about Omar raid weeks before election, ex-prosecutor says
Trump announces massive oil, gas and mineral exploration plans in Greenland, touts national security benefits
Trump administration slashes time refugees have to challenge loss of legal status
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he won’t fire NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch despite socialist pressure
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.
