An appellate court in San Francisco, part of the 9th circuit, has ruled that Trump’s administration must continue with the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program.
Previously, I had written that Trump’s administration was trying to bypass the 9th Circuit who at the time had not ruled on DACA, and asked the Supreme Court to hear the matter. The Supreme Court declined.
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge William Alsup (San Francisco) ruled that renewal applications of DACA must also continue. Alsup’s decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and that was denied as well. What remains at issue is accepting new DACA applications based on a federal ruling in the district court in Washington requiring Trump’s administration to do so.
The 9th’s Circuit’s ruling was based on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ argument that DACA was illegal because President Barack Obama did not have the authority to adopt the law in the first place.
The Court’s ruling focused on the government being able to end DACA for other reasons, but not under that legal argument.
“We hold only that here, where the Executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA — but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required — the rescission was arbitrary and capricious,” Wardlaw wrote. “The government is, as always, free to reexamine its policy choices, so long as doing so does not violate an injunction or any freestanding statutory or constitutional protection.”- Judge Warlaw.
In addition, the appellate court wrote in their opinion that “in a world where the government can remove only a small percentage of the undocumented noncitizens present in this country in any year,” the panel said, DACA lets it “devote much-needed resources to enforcement priorities such as threats to national security, rather than blameless and economically productive young people with clean criminal records.”
That last sentence is key and seems to indicate that the court will not entertain deporting those that have lived within the United States and contributed in a productive matter.
With time, DACA will end up in the Supreme Court unless bi-partisan legislation is passed. From day one there has been talks of granting citizenship to DACA recipients in exchange for funding for the border wall. At a $25 billion price tag, I don’t think building a wall is justified, a fence type structure which is cheaper and more environmentally friendly, maybe. I’ve seen proposals where fences double as solar panels, a great idea, but like always, there’s no money in solar energy.
Alexander Hernandez, Esq.
The Trump administration unveiled new rules with the intent of limiting asylum claims for migrants that cross via the United States – Mexico border.
The issues surrounding DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) remains pending in the federal courts, but the Justice Department is asking for the Supreme Court to take up the case. The reason is simple enough; the Supreme Court’s calendar.