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.  


Former Russian president warns Europe’s ‘peaceful sleep is over’ after Romania drone hit
Kevin Kiley’s two-front fight: Battling California redistricting while defending his own seat
Dead voter allegation fuels concerns about voting safeguards as blue state official turns herself in
WATCH: America’s first ‘formerly undocumented’ congressman delivers ultimatum at besieged ICE facility
‘Your Time Has Passed’: Democrats Furious After Jill and Hunter Biden Burst Back Into Spotlight
White House Launches Aliens.Gov After Series of Cryptic Messages: ‘They Walk Among Us’
Amtrak fire near Penn Station triggers major NYC commuter disruptions, NJ Transit and LIRR cancellations
‘Ghosts’ on Florida highways: Roadside sting snares 249 illegal immigrants, officers warn many more hiding
Blistering report exposes how national K-12 group’s DEI agenda is trickling down to local schools
Democrats ‘selling their soul’ to embrace Platner are in for rude awakening with Maine voters: GOP lawmaker
Can congressional Democrats co-opt MAHA from the MAGA-verse?
Democrats lash out at Bidens as former first lady relitigates the past: ‘They suck’
With tough midterm elections looming, Trump 2028 GOP revenge list grows
12-year-old boy dies after raft capsizes during school trip in Pennsylvania
BREAKING VIDEO: Blue Origin Rocket Suffers Massive Explosion After Catastrophic Failure at Cape Canaveral

See also  NBA star places massive bet on Spencer Pratt in LA mayoral race

“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.


Former Russian president warns Europe’s ‘peaceful sleep is over’ after Romania drone hit
Kevin Kiley’s two-front fight: Battling California redistricting while defending his own seat
Dead voter allegation fuels concerns about voting safeguards as blue state official turns herself in
WATCH: America’s first ‘formerly undocumented’ congressman delivers ultimatum at besieged ICE facility
‘Your Time Has Passed’: Democrats Furious After Jill and Hunter Biden Burst Back Into Spotlight
White House Launches Aliens.Gov After Series of Cryptic Messages: ‘They Walk Among Us’
Amtrak fire near Penn Station triggers major NYC commuter disruptions, NJ Transit and LIRR cancellations
‘Ghosts’ on Florida highways: Roadside sting snares 249 illegal immigrants, officers warn many more hiding
Blistering report exposes how national K-12 group’s DEI agenda is trickling down to local schools
Democrats ‘selling their soul’ to embrace Platner are in for rude awakening with Maine voters: GOP lawmaker
Can congressional Democrats co-opt MAHA from the MAGA-verse?
Democrats lash out at Bidens as former first lady relitigates the past: ‘They suck’
With tough midterm elections looming, Trump 2028 GOP revenge list grows
12-year-old boy dies after raft capsizes during school trip in Pennsylvania
BREAKING VIDEO: Blue Origin Rocket Suffers Massive Explosion After Catastrophic Failure at Cape Canaveral

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  US denies reports of evacuating US Embassy in Kyiv amid threats of Russian airstrikes

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.


Former Russian president warns Europe’s ‘peaceful sleep is over’ after Romania drone hit
Kevin Kiley’s two-front fight: Battling California redistricting while defending his own seat
Dead voter allegation fuels concerns about voting safeguards as blue state official turns herself in
WATCH: America’s first ‘formerly undocumented’ congressman delivers ultimatum at besieged ICE facility
‘Your Time Has Passed’: Democrats Furious After Jill and Hunter Biden Burst Back Into Spotlight
White House Launches Aliens.Gov After Series of Cryptic Messages: ‘They Walk Among Us’
Amtrak fire near Penn Station triggers major NYC commuter disruptions, NJ Transit and LIRR cancellations
‘Ghosts’ on Florida highways: Roadside sting snares 249 illegal immigrants, officers warn many more hiding
Blistering report exposes how national K-12 group’s DEI agenda is trickling down to local schools
Democrats ‘selling their soul’ to embrace Platner are in for rude awakening with Maine voters: GOP lawmaker
Can congressional Democrats co-opt MAHA from the MAGA-verse?
Democrats lash out at Bidens as former first lady relitigates the past: ‘They suck’
With tough midterm elections looming, Trump 2028 GOP revenge list grows
12-year-old boy dies after raft capsizes during school trip in Pennsylvania
BREAKING VIDEO: Blue Origin Rocket Suffers Massive Explosion After Catastrophic Failure at Cape Canaveral

See also  Tulsi Gabbard honors wish of Gold Star wife to visit husband’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery

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