DACA (Deferred Action For Children Arrivals) remains in force after 5-4 US Supreme Court decision announced today–June 18, 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/trump-daca-supreme-court.html
Score one for Human Rights.
It’s been a good week for Supreme Court decisions.
Washington Post article titled:
Supreme Court rules against Trump attempt to end DACA a win for Dreamers brought to US as children.
(my link for this Washington Post article didn’t work)
DACA affects about 650,000 to 700,000 “dreamers”.
Very good! It’s a DREAMer come true, for many!
There is simple lesson here, if you hate a policy then you have to follow the process to change it rather than trying an end-around.
USCIS Deputy Director for Policy Joseph Edlow said in a statement the "court opinion has no basis in law and merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program."
Honestly, I could not decide whether to laugh or cry when I read this statement (bolding by me). If an opinion by SCOTUS has NO basis in law, we are clearly in uncharted territory.
Truth is, Chief Justice Roberts is an institutionalist, i.e. process over the merits. Therefore, today he simply instructed the executive branch of government on what it should have done to achieve its objective. The court did not disapprove of or reject the government’s objective on its face.
It is still a shaky program as it was set up by an executive order and not by congress. The Dreamers still have no path to citizenship and have a two year process to complete every year. I think the way the dates are set up (you have to have been brought here before 2012 I think) that fewer and fewer can qualify to file an initial DACA petition (right now no new petitions, but with the case today it is unclear if they will reopen).
If people want this changed, they need to change the law not the policy. Congress needs to act.
Maybe somebody can explain to me why this is an actual victory and not just a temporary reprieve? It looks like the court basically laid out the path to repeal DACA legally - i.e. follow the process correctly instead of skipping to the end.
Can the current administration simply immediately start a fresh process to end DACA, and this time follow appropriate laws?
Yes they can. However as ending DACA was politically unpopular for the current administration, it may not be the best move politically. But, legally, yes they can.
Yes they can correct their mistakes and follow a proper procedure.
Or they can just let it run out. I don’t think many more people can file an original application because of the requirements:
Soon there won’t be many who were in the US before 2007 and who lived here every day since Aug 2012.
The US Supreme Court’s DACA decision of June 18, 2020:
Department of Homeland Security et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al.
Argued November 12, 2019—Decided June 18, 2020 (October Term 2019)
Cite as 591 US ___ (2020)
https://www.ilcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DACA-Decision.pdf
The US Supreme Court’s DACA decision comes down to this issue:
Whether the agency exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner.
The Court’s conclusion included the following:
“We do not decide whether DACA or its recission are sound policies. The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”
Yet, the Court’s opinion immediately preceded the above with:
“Whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”
Two very different explanations for its (the US Supreme Court’s) decision, in my opinion. A “reasoned explanation” is not the same standard as “whether discretion was exercised in a reasonable manner”, in my view. The former is satisfied simply by writing words on a paper, while the latter permits Justices to substitute their opinion (of reasonableness) for that of the government agency.
I suspect that this glaring difference was not an oversight by the US Supreme Court Justices in stating the Court’s conclusory remarks. This, essentially, can be seen as a negotiated settlement leaving the door wide open for the action of the next Administration, in my opinion.
Furthermore, this DACA decision invites Congressional action.
In my view, an interesting aspect of the Agency’s initial justification for nullifying DACA has been given scant mention.
My understanding was that the Agency initially asserted that DACA was an illegal exercise of Executive power by President Obama. If accepted, then many of the current President’s executive actions could be nullified under the same standard / rationale.
Seems as though the US Supreme Court Justices are acting as skilled politicians, while the legislative & executive branches are acting otherwise.
Amen.
Moderator Note: Inflammatory and rude posts will be deleted. Please be respectful. Several comments removed.
Well that didn’t take long.
“ Trump Says He Will Renew Effort to End DACA Protections After Supreme Court Ruling”
https://time.com/5856408/trump-attacks-daca-supreme-court-ruling/
Renewed efforts to end DACA are only meaningful if the incumbent wins reelection. Otherwise, the lengthy review process favors those covered by DACA.
The President’s “renewed efforts” are nothing more than a campaign issue.
In my opinion, getting reelected as President is not enough without controlling both the House & the Senate unless another vacancy occurs on the US Supreme Court.