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.
One of America’s prettiest cities scrambles to reclaim storybook streets from homeless camps, drug dens
British Actor Who Mocked Christianity Receives Scorn for Mourning Rise of Islam
Child of Chinese illegal immigrants charged with planting explosive at US military base
Hegseth’s Prayer Service Targeted by 2 Lawsuits over So-Called ‘White Christian Power Structures’
Alcatraz could reopen as a ‘state-of-the-art secure prison’ under Trump’s $152M budget request
Artist fumes after tribute honoring slain Iryna Zarutska gets scrubbed amid woke blowback
Son of Republican megadonor throws hat in the ring for open at-large House seat in Wyoming
Jillian Michaels Shreds Dems Sowing Chaos with Fearmongering Over ICE at Airports
Even the Liberal Justices Are Baffled by Kentanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent in ‘Textbook’ Free Speech Case
Mike Rowe doubles down after blasting Kimmel’s ‘tone-deaf’ plumber jokes
Iran signals manpower crisis with soldiers as young as 12, volunteer recruitment campaign
Trump says ‘America needs God’ in Good Friday message touting ‘resurgence of religion’
Watch: DEI-Obsessed Sky News Reporter Claims Moon Landings by ‘All White Men’ Didn’t Represent Humanity
Pro-Lifers Shred Trump Admin’s Biden-Era Title X Extension as ‘Inexplicable Slap in the Face’
Trump Admin Declares War on Microplastics in Drinking Water
“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.
One of America’s prettiest cities scrambles to reclaim storybook streets from homeless camps, drug dens
British Actor Who Mocked Christianity Receives Scorn for Mourning Rise of Islam
Child of Chinese illegal immigrants charged with planting explosive at US military base
Hegseth’s Prayer Service Targeted by 2 Lawsuits over So-Called ‘White Christian Power Structures’
Alcatraz could reopen as a ‘state-of-the-art secure prison’ under Trump’s $152M budget request
Artist fumes after tribute honoring slain Iryna Zarutska gets scrubbed amid woke blowback
Son of Republican megadonor throws hat in the ring for open at-large House seat in Wyoming
Jillian Michaels Shreds Dems Sowing Chaos with Fearmongering Over ICE at Airports
Even the Liberal Justices Are Baffled by Kentanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent in ‘Textbook’ Free Speech Case
Mike Rowe doubles down after blasting Kimmel’s ‘tone-deaf’ plumber jokes
Iran signals manpower crisis with soldiers as young as 12, volunteer recruitment campaign
Trump says ‘America needs God’ in Good Friday message touting ‘resurgence of religion’
Watch: DEI-Obsessed Sky News Reporter Claims Moon Landings by ‘All White Men’ Didn’t Represent Humanity
Pro-Lifers Shred Trump Admin’s Biden-Era Title X Extension as ‘Inexplicable Slap in the Face’
Trump Admin Declares War on Microplastics in Drinking Water
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.
One of America’s prettiest cities scrambles to reclaim storybook streets from homeless camps, drug dens
British Actor Who Mocked Christianity Receives Scorn for Mourning Rise of Islam
Child of Chinese illegal immigrants charged with planting explosive at US military base
Hegseth’s Prayer Service Targeted by 2 Lawsuits over So-Called ‘White Christian Power Structures’
Alcatraz could reopen as a ‘state-of-the-art secure prison’ under Trump’s $152M budget request
Artist fumes after tribute honoring slain Iryna Zarutska gets scrubbed amid woke blowback
Son of Republican megadonor throws hat in the ring for open at-large House seat in Wyoming
Jillian Michaels Shreds Dems Sowing Chaos with Fearmongering Over ICE at Airports
Even the Liberal Justices Are Baffled by Kentanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent in ‘Textbook’ Free Speech Case
Mike Rowe doubles down after blasting Kimmel’s ‘tone-deaf’ plumber jokes
Iran signals manpower crisis with soldiers as young as 12, volunteer recruitment campaign
Trump says ‘America needs God’ in Good Friday message touting ‘resurgence of religion’
Watch: DEI-Obsessed Sky News Reporter Claims Moon Landings by ‘All White Men’ Didn’t Represent Humanity
Pro-Lifers Shred Trump Admin’s Biden-Era Title X Extension as ‘Inexplicable Slap in the Face’
Trump Admin Declares War on Microplastics in Drinking Water
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.
