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.
‘Conspiracy’ Speculation Erupts After Botched Execution of Christa Pike: ‘There’s No Way’
Rerun of ‘America’s Most Wanted’ Leads to Arrest in Cold Case That Haunted Detectives for Decades
Sleeper Senate race emerges as unexpected headache for Republicans ahead of midterms
Fox News Poll: Turek, Hinson in close Iowa Senate race
Watch: Comedian Pete Davidson Calls Out Mamdani on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ – Right Before the Mayor Walks Onstage
GOP Senator Who Had a Party for His Dog Last Week Complains ICE Is ‘Dragging People Away’
Illinois officials released more than 500 criminal immigrants despite ICE detainers, House GOP report finds
France gripped by violent student riots attributed to far-left instigation
Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a finding of not guilty denied weeks after mistrial
Christa Pike’s attorneys say she’s in critical condition after botched lethal injections
Reporter’s Notebook: Congress dodged a fall shutdown, but the real fight looms
British authorities arrest dual national on suspicion of ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ in RAF Fairford case
Breaking: Execution of TN Woman Goes Bad: 2 Lethal Injections Leave Subject Snoring, Very Much Alive
Indian Flydubai pilot ‘recovering well’ in hospital: Ambassador
California governor debate turns into Trump-Newsom proxy war
“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.
‘Conspiracy’ Speculation Erupts After Botched Execution of Christa Pike: ‘There’s No Way’
Rerun of ‘America’s Most Wanted’ Leads to Arrest in Cold Case That Haunted Detectives for Decades
Sleeper Senate race emerges as unexpected headache for Republicans ahead of midterms
Fox News Poll: Turek, Hinson in close Iowa Senate race
Watch: Comedian Pete Davidson Calls Out Mamdani on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ – Right Before the Mayor Walks Onstage
GOP Senator Who Had a Party for His Dog Last Week Complains ICE Is ‘Dragging People Away’
Illinois officials released more than 500 criminal immigrants despite ICE detainers, House GOP report finds
France gripped by violent student riots attributed to far-left instigation
Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a finding of not guilty denied weeks after mistrial
Christa Pike’s attorneys say she’s in critical condition after botched lethal injections
Reporter’s Notebook: Congress dodged a fall shutdown, but the real fight looms
British authorities arrest dual national on suspicion of ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ in RAF Fairford case
Breaking: Execution of TN Woman Goes Bad: 2 Lethal Injections Leave Subject Snoring, Very Much Alive
Indian Flydubai pilot ‘recovering well’ in hospital: Ambassador
California governor debate turns into Trump-Newsom proxy war
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.
‘Conspiracy’ Speculation Erupts After Botched Execution of Christa Pike: ‘There’s No Way’
Rerun of ‘America’s Most Wanted’ Leads to Arrest in Cold Case That Haunted Detectives for Decades
Sleeper Senate race emerges as unexpected headache for Republicans ahead of midterms
Fox News Poll: Turek, Hinson in close Iowa Senate race
Watch: Comedian Pete Davidson Calls Out Mamdani on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live’ – Right Before the Mayor Walks Onstage
GOP Senator Who Had a Party for His Dog Last Week Complains ICE Is ‘Dragging People Away’
Illinois officials released more than 500 criminal immigrants despite ICE detainers, House GOP report finds
France gripped by violent student riots attributed to far-left instigation
Lindsay Clancy’s motion for a finding of not guilty denied weeks after mistrial
Christa Pike’s attorneys say she’s in critical condition after botched lethal injections
Reporter’s Notebook: Congress dodged a fall shutdown, but the real fight looms
British authorities arrest dual national on suspicion of ‘preparation of terrorist acts’ in RAF Fairford case
Breaking: Execution of TN Woman Goes Bad: 2 Lethal Injections Leave Subject Snoring, Very Much Alive
Indian Flydubai pilot ‘recovering well’ in hospital: Ambassador
California governor debate turns into Trump-Newsom proxy war
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.









