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.
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
Trump signs pardons for Alaska diesel mechanics onstage during rally touting major energy deals
Trump Energy Department issues emergency order to prevent blackouts across 13 states amid unusual October heat
Florida executes inmate who killed cellmate because he wanted death penalty
Great Wolf Lodge horror as mom accused of killing husband and toddler inside hotel room
Campaign Blunder Causes Ad for Key Senate Race to Air in the Wrong State on the Opposite End of the Country
Attorney says fatal Six Flags roller coaster accident could raise broader safety questions as 9 rides close
Breaking: DOJ Subpoenas Ilhan Omar’s Sister, Other Family Over Evidence of Fraudulent Immigration Paperwork
Watch: Indiana Dem Accused of Being Drunk On Air After Eye-Popping Interview Makes Kamala Look Like Stone Sober Genius
Daily Wire Reveals New Movie Featuring Star-Studded Cast, Including Rob Lowe and James Franco
Jen Psaki Gets a Tough Reality Check After Catty Shot at Katie Zacharia’s White House Press Briefing Debut
Watch: Omar’s April Interview Contains Devastating Admission – If DOJ Investigated Her, They’d Know She’s Guilty
Pentagon pushes hypersonic weapons production as startups slash costs
“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.
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
Trump signs pardons for Alaska diesel mechanics onstage during rally touting major energy deals
Trump Energy Department issues emergency order to prevent blackouts across 13 states amid unusual October heat
Florida executes inmate who killed cellmate because he wanted death penalty
Great Wolf Lodge horror as mom accused of killing husband and toddler inside hotel room
Campaign Blunder Causes Ad for Key Senate Race to Air in the Wrong State on the Opposite End of the Country
Attorney says fatal Six Flags roller coaster accident could raise broader safety questions as 9 rides close
Breaking: DOJ Subpoenas Ilhan Omar’s Sister, Other Family Over Evidence of Fraudulent Immigration Paperwork
Watch: Indiana Dem Accused of Being Drunk On Air After Eye-Popping Interview Makes Kamala Look Like Stone Sober Genius
Daily Wire Reveals New Movie Featuring Star-Studded Cast, Including Rob Lowe and James Franco
Jen Psaki Gets a Tough Reality Check After Catty Shot at Katie Zacharia’s White House Press Briefing Debut
Watch: Omar’s April Interview Contains Devastating Admission – If DOJ Investigated Her, They’d Know She’s Guilty
Pentagon pushes hypersonic weapons production as startups slash costs
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.
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
Trump signs pardons for Alaska diesel mechanics onstage during rally touting major energy deals
Trump Energy Department issues emergency order to prevent blackouts across 13 states amid unusual October heat
Florida executes inmate who killed cellmate because he wanted death penalty
Great Wolf Lodge horror as mom accused of killing husband and toddler inside hotel room
Campaign Blunder Causes Ad for Key Senate Race to Air in the Wrong State on the Opposite End of the Country
Attorney says fatal Six Flags roller coaster accident could raise broader safety questions as 9 rides close
Breaking: DOJ Subpoenas Ilhan Omar’s Sister, Other Family Over Evidence of Fraudulent Immigration Paperwork
Watch: Indiana Dem Accused of Being Drunk On Air After Eye-Popping Interview Makes Kamala Look Like Stone Sober Genius
Daily Wire Reveals New Movie Featuring Star-Studded Cast, Including Rob Lowe and James Franco
Jen Psaki Gets a Tough Reality Check After Catty Shot at Katie Zacharia’s White House Press Briefing Debut
Watch: Omar’s April Interview Contains Devastating Admission – If DOJ Investigated Her, They’d Know She’s Guilty
Pentagon pushes hypersonic weapons production as startups slash costs
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.









