<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<h3 itemprop=”name”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
The Supreme Court Heard a Major Case on DACA. Here’s What You Need to Know.
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/articles/articles/392108-article-the-supreme-court-heard-a-major-case-on-daca-here%E2%80%99s-what-you-need-to-know-by-jorge-loweree#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<span itemprop=”name”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
Jorge Loweree
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
</span></span>
</a></i></h4><br/>
<span itemprop=”articleBody”>
<div class=”post-content entry-content”>
<div class=”at-above-post addthis_tool” data-url=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/11/13/supreme-court-daca-what-you-need-to-know/”></div><p>The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 12 in three cases challenging President Trump’s attempted rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. The Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for <a href=”https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-daca-and-other-policies-designed-protect-dreamers” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>DACA</a> recipients and the limits of executive authority when it comes to immigration law and policy.</p>
<p>President Obama created the DACA initiative in June 2012 to provide young unauthorized immigrants with protection from deportation and the ability to work lawfully in the United States in two-year renewable increments. All applicants were required to meet specific criteria related to age, education, and criminal history. <a href=”https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Static_files/DACA_Population_Receipts_since_Injunction_Jun_30_2019.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>Government data</a> indicates that approximately 661,000 people are currently enrolled. President Trump terminated the program September 5, 2017.</p>
<p>On Tuesday, the Supreme Court focused on one primary question: did the Trump administration provide an adequate explanation for <em>why</em> it ended DACA?</p>
<p>Anytime the Executive Branch makes a major policy decision such as ending DACA, it must explain why and ensure that the reasoning is not “arbitrary and capricious.” The Trump administration needed to provide a reason why it was ending an initiative that hundreds of thousands of people had benefited from and relied upon.</p>
<p>In two memos announcing the rescission, administration officials claimed DACA was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority, and thus “illegal” from the start. Both memos <a href=”https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>failed</a> to offer any policy justifications for the termination of the program. They instead pointed to a <a href=”https://www.justice.gov/opa/case-document/file/1070481/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>decision</a> by the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas barring a <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/03/04/who-benefits-from-dapa/#.XcwmOdVOmHs” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>similar program</a> known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) as proof that DACA was illegal.</p>
<p>In response to <a href=”https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/daca-litigation-timeline/” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>several lawsuits</a>, lower courts across the country issued injunctions against the rescission. This forced the government to continue accepting and adjudicating DACA requests from people who have DACA or those who participated in the past. These lawsuits then made their way to the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court focused on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it discussed whether the president’s decision to eliminate DACA is one that can be reviewed by federal courts and, if so, if it was lawful as implemented. The APA sets forth the standards governing the judicial review of decisions by executive branch agencies.</p>
<p>The APA permits a federal court to review whether government action is “arbitrary or capricious,” or otherwise not in accord with the law. It thus provides a check on government decisions that do not have lawful, rational justifications.</p>
<p>This review is particularly important when major policy decisions would significantly impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the United States, like the attempted rescission of DACA. The APA contains an exception, however, for actions considered to be within an agency’s discretion.</p>
<p>The administration argued that its decision falls within this exception and is therefore not reviewable by the courts. This is a curious position given its exclusive focus on the DAPA case in Texas as its justification for rescinding DACA.</p>
<p>The respondents—the parties that initially challenged the DACA rescission—argued that the original memo rescinding the policy contained factual and legal errors, and that the reasoning provided for the decision was insufficient.</p>
<p><a href=”https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/supreme-court-dreamers.html” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>Initial reports</a> indicate that a majority of the justices appear ready to allow the administration to move forward with the rescission of the program.</p>
<p>The consequences of simply revoking a program like DACA that people have come to rely on for many years are dire. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people who participated in the program over the last seven years would be thrown into disarray.</p>
<p>It would then be up to Congress and the president to negotiate a permanent solution allowing DACA recipients to live and work in the United States without the constant threat of deportation. The <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/06/05/house-passes-bill-for-dreamers-tps/#.Xcw0AtVOmHs” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>House passed</a> such a measure in June of this year.</p>
<p>Photo by Maria Frausto.</p>
<!– AddThis Advanced Settings above via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings below via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Share Buttons above via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Share Buttons below via filter on the_content –><div class=”at-below-post addthis_tool” data-url=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/11/13/supreme-court-daca-what-you-need-to-know/”></div><!– AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Related Posts below via filter on the_content –><div class=”at-below-post-recommended addthis_tool”></div><!– AddThis Related Posts generic via filter on the_content –> <p>
</p>
FILED UNDER: <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/tag/donald-trump-immigration/” rel=”tag”>Donald Trump</a>, <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/tag/supreme-court/” rel=”tag”>Supreme Court</a><br> </div>
<p>This post originally appeared on <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/11/13/supreme-court-daca-what-you-need-to-know/#.XdLbLldKiUk” target=”_blank”>Immigration Impact</a>. Reprinted with permission.</p>
</span>
<hr/><h4>
<a name=”bio”></a>
About The Author<br/>
</h4>
<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>
<p>
<b>Jorge Loweree</b> is the Director of Policy at the American Immigration Council where he directs the Council’s administrative and legislative advocacy and leads the Council’s efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States. Previously, Jorge spent ten years in a variety of positions with the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as Senior Counsel for Immigration Law and Policy, working on a wide range of enforcement and benefits issues. His experience includes the creation and implementation of novel and progressive programs to provide legal assistance to underserved populations, as well as extensive coalition-building and advocacy in pursuit of legal and regulatory reforms. Earlier in his career, Jorge provided direct legal representation with the Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County and was an Equal Justice America Fellow at our Justice Campaign partner Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN). He grew up in Juarez, Mexico and is a fluent Spanish speaker. Jorge holds a J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School and Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from the Saint Mary’s University.
</p>
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<p><hr/>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>
<span itemprop=”name”>ILW.COM</span></span>.</div></p>
</div>
{$inline_image
