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.  


Fox News True Crime Newsletter: No suspects identified in disappearance of Nancy Guthrie as deadline passes
Civil rights groups issue Florida travel advisory for FIFA World Cup over immigration enforcement tactics
White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Boston’s Wu orders release of ICE surveillance and bodycam footage, says fed government ‘hides behind masks’
Baltimore Mayor Plays the Race Card After Being Called Out on His $163,495 Taxpayer-Funded Vehicle
Kamala Harris Gives Clearest Indication Yet That She’s Running in 2028, Restarts 2024 Machine
Winning! Rental Prices Drop to 4-Year Low After Major Spike Under Biden
White House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration
Breaking: FBI Arrests Man for Allegedly Targeting Nancy Guthrie’s Family with Demands
Los Angeles mayoral race upended by allegations Karen Bass altered fire report
Leavitt flips script on media for balking at Fulton election probe after years of promoting Russia claims
Anti-ICE ‘digital Minutemen’ use military-grade surveillance tactics against feds
Trump claims DNI Tulsi Gabbard was at Georgia election hub search because AG Pam Bondi wanted her there
Jill Biden’s ex-husband, now charged with murder, called wife ‘greatest thing in my life’
Arctic blast fuels scrutiny of Biden’s $8B electric bus push as watchdogs cite oversight failures

See also  Judge dismisses DOJ judicial misconduct complaint against James Boasberg

“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.


Fox News True Crime Newsletter: No suspects identified in disappearance of Nancy Guthrie as deadline passes
Civil rights groups issue Florida travel advisory for FIFA World Cup over immigration enforcement tactics
White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Boston’s Wu orders release of ICE surveillance and bodycam footage, says fed government ‘hides behind masks’
Baltimore Mayor Plays the Race Card After Being Called Out on His $163,495 Taxpayer-Funded Vehicle
Kamala Harris Gives Clearest Indication Yet That She’s Running in 2028, Restarts 2024 Machine
Winning! Rental Prices Drop to 4-Year Low After Major Spike Under Biden
White House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration
Breaking: FBI Arrests Man for Allegedly Targeting Nancy Guthrie’s Family with Demands
Los Angeles mayoral race upended by allegations Karen Bass altered fire report
Leavitt flips script on media for balking at Fulton election probe after years of promoting Russia claims
Anti-ICE ‘digital Minutemen’ use military-grade surveillance tactics against feds
Trump claims DNI Tulsi Gabbard was at Georgia election hub search because AG Pam Bondi wanted her there
Jill Biden’s ex-husband, now charged with murder, called wife ‘greatest thing in my life’
Arctic blast fuels scrutiny of Biden’s $8B electric bus push as watchdogs cite oversight failures

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  AI giant’s lobbyist spending exploded as it clashed with Trump administration

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.


Fox News True Crime Newsletter: No suspects identified in disappearance of Nancy Guthrie as deadline passes
Civil rights groups issue Florida travel advisory for FIFA World Cup over immigration enforcement tactics
White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Boston’s Wu orders release of ICE surveillance and bodycam footage, says fed government ‘hides behind masks’
Baltimore Mayor Plays the Race Card After Being Called Out on His $163,495 Taxpayer-Funded Vehicle
Kamala Harris Gives Clearest Indication Yet That She’s Running in 2028, Restarts 2024 Machine
Winning! Rental Prices Drop to 4-Year Low After Major Spike Under Biden
White House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration
Breaking: FBI Arrests Man for Allegedly Targeting Nancy Guthrie’s Family with Demands
Los Angeles mayoral race upended by allegations Karen Bass altered fire report
Leavitt flips script on media for balking at Fulton election probe after years of promoting Russia claims
Anti-ICE ‘digital Minutemen’ use military-grade surveillance tactics against feds
Trump claims DNI Tulsi Gabbard was at Georgia election hub search because AG Pam Bondi wanted her there
Jill Biden’s ex-husband, now charged with murder, called wife ‘greatest thing in my life’
Arctic blast fuels scrutiny of Biden’s $8B electric bus push as watchdogs cite oversight failures

See also  AI giant’s lobbyist spending exploded as it clashed with Trump administration

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