Posted on 11/14/2019 10:04:34 PM PST by MaxistheBest
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s effort to rescind a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children – dubbed “Dreamers” – part of his tough immigration policies.
Several of the five conservative justices appeared skeptical that courts can even review the Republican president’s 2017 plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which had been implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. Even if the court finds that it can be reviewed, conservative justices indicated they think Trump’s administration gave a reasonable explanation for its decision.
Liberal justices emphasized the large number of individuals, businesses and others that have relied on the program. The court’s 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – appointed by Trump.
The justices heard the administration’s appeals of lower court rulings in California, New York and the District of Columbia that blocked Trump’s move as unlawful and left DACA in place.
Trump’s administration has argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he created DACA by executive action, bypassing Congress. Trump has made his hardline immigration policies – cracking down on legal and illegal immigration and pursuing construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border – a centerpiece of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.
Kavanaugh said there is no reason to think that the administration’s consideration of the impact its decision would have on individuals, when weighed against its contention that the DACA program was unlawful from the beginning, was anything other than a “considered decision.”
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts – who could be the pivotal vote in deciding the case – questioned whether there was much more that needed to be added to the administration’s rationale even if the court were to rule in favor of the challengers and send the issue back for further review.
The challengers who sued to stop Trump’s action included a collection of states such as California and New York, people currently protected by the program and civil rights groups.
Were the court to rule in favor of the challengers it would merely prolong the uncertainty for “Dreamers,” Gorsuch said.
“What good would another five years of litigation … serve?” Gorsuch asked.
DACA currently shields about 660,000 immigrants – mostly Hispanic young adults – from deportation and provides them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.
Much of the administration’s reasoning in trying to end DACA was based on then-Attorney General Jeff Session’s conclusion in 2017 that the program was unlawful.
Gorsuch pressed an attorney representing supporters of DACA about the limits on courts to second guess decisions by federal agencies that are within their discretion to make. Gorsuch also seemed skeptical that the administration had not adequately addressed its reasons for rescinding the program, as DACA advocates have argued.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor demanded that U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case for the administration, identify whether the administration considered all the harm that ending the program would do, or if it was just a “choice to destroy lives.”
Francisco was repeatedly questioned as to why the administration has justified ending the program because of its purported unlawfulness instead of giving other reasons for why it wants to.
Toward the end of the argument Francisco pushed back, saying the administration was not trying to shirk responsibility for ending a popular program.
“We own this,” Francisco said, referring to Trump’s decision to kill DACA.
The lower courts ruled that Trump’s move to rescind DACA was likely “arbitrary and capricious” and violated a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
The justices must determine whether administration officials failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to end DACA. The initial memo rescinding DACA, the plaintiffs said, gave a “one-sentence explanation” and did not spell out why the administration believes the program is unlawful. The justices will also have to decide whether the administration’s action against DACA is even something courts can review.
Reuters contributed to this report.
I don’t trust Roberts for one minute.
That is the dumbest sentence I've read in a while. "Little Johnny, you say you don't eat peanuts because they make you break out and stop your heart from beating. Why can't you give us other reasons why you don't eat peanuts?"
later
Nope. He will make a deal. He will not have them deported. Yes he made a deal that the Dems rejected but he also spoke warmly about the Dreamers and said he wanted them to become legal. I will take him at his word.
Obama made them legal, but did it by sidestepping our laws.
He did not give them access to citizenship.
It’s about illegals becoming citizens. ***
Yes and also about ending DACA so that no more can flood over the border using DACA for protection.
Not deporting over 60K ppl, but not giving them a path to citizenship either.
If the SC rules in favor of Trump then Dreamers will gain permanent legal status via Congress. That is Trumps stated goal***
I think you are correct after all.
I said legal not citizenship.
Thanks, you must not be a women :) Or, anyway, my wife!
I do not agree with them staying but I do not think the tv viewing public will stomach the sight of the dreamers being deported. It is not a winnable battle. Trump knows that and so he is making sure Congress gets ahold of this tar baby.
Plus, I believe Trump wants them to stay and have a clear legal status which no executive decree, considering all of the layers of immigration law in place, is going to be able to give.
Finally, Trump eliminates a Dem pawn.
Yep, me too.
60% or so of them are from Mexico.
That’s a few hundred thousand.
I think they should start thinking about taking their homeland back from the criminals and oligarchs and cartels that are running it.
If some of them could organize a good lot of them to do so that would be great.
They could start by occupying Baja California (1-2 hundred thousand of them would have an impact)
From there they could start Making Mexico Great Again.
Or they could secede from Mexico and be
come part of the USA...or their own country: DreamLand!
Anchors Away...lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.