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.
In the words of that great American Peter Strzok The vote should be 1,000,000 to 0.
‘Bout dam time.
Are the USSC Justices hip deep in SWAMP water and finally have realized that they can’t rope-a-dope any longer?
So the case isn't actually about that because nothing will change.
It's about illegals becoming citizens.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Someone will get to Roberts for sure.
Easy! If you do not believe in God, but do believe in political power.
I recommend Machiavelli if you wish to understand those who lust after power.
“... Trump will be the last Republican President ...”
I believe you are correct, sadly. The end of the Republic is near. I work in the IT field and when we have meetings, 17 of 22 people in the room are non-Americans. This country as we knew is dying, finished, over. The pain is really going to start when Trump leaves office and the Rats take power.
Yes, as long as the justice is a Wise Latina.
This garbage was written by Lesbo Janet N.
AG cant write laws .
Its not a EO .
Why is it even around ?
They had better support the president’s DACA termination EO, otherwise they had shown themselves enemies of the US constitution and the primary separation of powers doctrine. Presidents and their administrations execute laws, not create them. If DACA is declared a law, them we have a monarchy??? If DACA is a “policy” then it is subject to oversight and action by both administration and or congress.
What would be great to see is that EOs on their face are eventually declared extra-legislative and non-binding to anyone but the minions of the administration.
My child’s randomly assigned college roommate was an illegal with a full ride scholarship. That took college away from an American citizen and that $$$$$$$$ was a slap in the face to every parent who scrimped and saved and deprived the family throughout the years to save for tuition.
So for you it’s Trump “right or wrong” or you’re “never Trump”? Trump botched this. As pointed out he can deport them if he really wants to. Also, he has already shown he will not deport the Dreamers. He wants them to stay.
I disagree with Trump in this. I think they should leave.
You can support Trump’s desire to keep them here if you want if that allows you to happily declare everyone else Never Trump.
So frustrating this issue is even at the SC. A memo written by a bureaucrat creates a law so potent it can only be reversed by rule of the SC.
That is as unconstitutional as banning guns.
Not interested in educating NeverTrump.
You and I have NO idea what's going on in Washington over this.
Neither of us is "in the know" enough about to have an informed opinion.
You're just someone throwing shells from the peanut gallery.
Have fun.
I don’t need a Washington insider to see that Trump can have the dreamers shipped out if he wants to and that he has not done so and that he has stated he wants them to stay. Does that qualify me as Never Trump, the “shell” you seem to like throwing.
Trump wants legal immigration and he is willing to keep the Dreamers. He botched the execution of this but he was trying to force Congress to settle the issue and that would mean making the Dreamers LEGAL.
If the SC rules in favor of Trump then Dreamers will gain permanent legal status via Congress. That is Trumps stated goal. No need to interpret nth level chess playing or insider drama.
“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.”
This is the BS rationale Roberts used to overturn the EO and regulations regarding Census questions.
I don’t think ANY rationale is needed for Executive Orders. As far as I know, the Court never overturned an Obama executive order because it didn’t have enough paper justifying it.
Roberts has been a consistent enemy on immigration issues with this bullshit procedural stuff. I would expect the same from him although I would just prefer that he admit that he thinks open borders are a great idea and that he will twist his opinions to achieve that result, regardless of any constitutional or legal basis for his opinion.
Idiot.
Yup. She actually used the emotionally charged phrase twice. Yeah, no bias there.
Yes, as long as the justice is a Wise Latina***
Oh right.
That was the reason for her being on the SC.
A racist/racism appointment.
What’s next, a trans?
Not by Trump but by Clinton if she gets elected pres. sometime.
She may be brokered in to run against Trump, but she could not win.
So she has to wait until 2014 to run against Don, Jr or Ivanka.
But then there is Chelsea, she is 39 at this time.
If the SC rules in favor of Trump then Dreamers will gain permanent legal status via Congress. That is Trumps stated goal. ****
No it isn’t.
It was a while back when he tried to make a deal with the dems.
The outcome was that it outed the dems as not really caring about the dreamers at all.
That was a time when Trump would have gone for what you say, but he dropped that deal when the dems showed their racist side towards “Hispanics.”
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.