|
Protesters
gather
outside
the U.S.
Supreme
Court as
justices
were
scheduled
to hear
oral
arguments
in the
consolidation
of three
cases
before
the
court
regarding
the
Trump
administration’s
bid to
end the
Deferred
Action
for
Childhood
Arrivals
(DACA)
program
in
Washington,
U.S.,
November
12,
2019.
(REUTERS/Jonathan
Ernst) |
|
Split
Supreme
Court
appears
ready to
allow
Trump to
end DACA
By
MARK
SHERMAN
apnews.com
WASHINGTON
-
Sharply
at odds
with
liberal
justices,
the
Supreme
Court’s
conservative
majority
seemed
ready
Tuesday
to allow
the
Trump
administration
to
abolish
protections
that
permit
660,000
immigrants
to work
in the
U.S.,
free
from the
threat
of
deportation.
That
outcome
would
“destroy
lives,”
declared
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor,
one the
court’s
liberals
who
repeatedly
suggested
the
administration
has not
adequately
justified
its
decision
to end
the
seven-year-old
Deferred
Action
for
Childhood
Arrivals
program.
Nor has
it taken
sufficient
account
of the
personal,
economic
and
social
disruption
that
might
result,
they
said.
But
there
did not
appear
to be
any
support
among
the five
conservatives
for
blocking
the
administration.
The
nine-member
court’s
decision
is
expected
by June,
at the
height
of the
2020
presidential
campaign.
President
Donald
Trump
said on
Twitter
that
DACA
recipients
shouldn’t
despair
if the
justices
side
with
him,
pledging
that “a
deal
will be
made
with the
Dems for
them to
stay!”
But
Trump’s
past
promises
to work
with
Democrats
on a
legislative
solution
for
these
immigrants
have led
nowhere.
The
president
also
said in
his
tweet
that
many
program
participants,
brought
to the
U.S. as
children
and now
here
illegally,
are “far
from
‘angels,’”
and he
falsely
claimed
that
“some
are very
tough,
hardened
criminals.”
The
program
bars
anyone
with a
felony
conviction
from
participating,
and
serious
misdemeanors
may also
bar
eligibility.
Some
DACA
recipients
who are
part of
the
lawsuit
against
Trump’s
action
were in
the
courtroom
for the
arguments,
and many
people
camped
out in
front of
the
court
for days
for a
chance
at some
of the
few
seats
available.
The
high
court
arguments
did not
involve
any
discussion
of
individual
DACA
recipients
or
Trump’s
claims.
Instead
the
focus
was on
whether
either
of two
administration
rationales
for
ending
DACA,
begun
under
President
Barack
Obama,
was
enough.
Trump’s
anti-immigrant
rhetoric
was a
key part
of his
presidential
campaign
in 2016,
and his
administration
has
pointed
to a
court
ruling
striking
down the
expansion
of DACA
and
creation
of
similar
protections,
known as
DAPA,
for
undocumented
immigrants
whose
children
are U.S.
citizens
as
reasons
to bring
the
program
to a
halt.
After
lower
courts
stepped
in to
keep the
program
alive,
the
administration
produced
a new
explanation
memo
from
Homeland
Security
Secretary
Kirstjen
Nielsen.
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
and
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh
were
among
the
justices
who
indicated
on
Tuesday
that the
administration
has
provided
sufficient
reason
for
doing
away
with the
program.
Kavanaugh
referred
to
Nielsen’s
memo at
one
point as
“a very
considered
decision.”
Roberts
suggested
that
worries
that
DACA is
not
legal
might be
enough
to
support
ending
it.
Roberts,
who
could
hold the
pivotal
vote on
the
court,
aimed
his few
questions
at
lawyers
representing
DACA
recipients
and
their
supporters.
He did
not
seriously
question
the
administration’s
argument.
However,
justices’
questions
don’t
always
foretell
their
votes.
In June
the
chief
justice
surprised
many
when he
cast the
deciding
vote to
prevent
the
administration
from
adding a
citizenship
question
to the
2020
census,
despite
not
voicing
much
skepticism
during
arguments
in the
case.
Justices
Neil
Gorsuch
and
Samuel
Alito
raised
questions
on
Tuesday
about
whether
courts
should
even be
reviewing
the
executive
branch’s
discretionary
decisions.
Sotomayor
made the
only
direct
reference
to
Trump,
saying
he told
DACA
recipients
“that
they
were
safe
under
him and
that he
would
find a
way to
keep
them
here.
And so
he
hasn’t.”
She
also
complained
that the
administration’s
rationale
has
shifted
over
time and
has
mainly
relied
on the
view
that
DACA is
illegal,
leaving
no
choice
but to
end it.
In
her most
barbed
comment,
Sotomayor
said the
administration
has
failed
to
plainly
say
“that
this is
not
about
the law.
This is
about
our
choice
to
destroy
lives.”
Solicitor
General
Noel
Francisco,
representing
the
administration,
did not
directly
respond
to
Sotomayor.
But near
the end
of the
80-minute
arguments,
he
asserted
that the
administration
has
taken
responsibility
for its
decision
and is
relying
on more
than
merely
its
belief
that
DACA is
illegal.
The
administration
has the
authority
to end
DACA,
even if
it’s
legal,
because
it’s bad
policy,
he said.
“We own
this,”
Francisco
said.
If
the
court
agrees
with the
administration
in the
DACA
case,
Congress
could
follow
up by
voting
to put
the
program
on surer
legal
footing.
But the
absence
of
comprehensive
immigration
reform
by
Congress
is what
prompted
Obama to
create
DACA in
the
first
place,
in 2012,
giving
people
two-year
renewable
reprieves
from the
threat
of
deportation
while
also
allowing
them to
work.
Young
immigrants,
civil
rights
groups,
universities
and
Democratic-led
cities
and
states
sued to
block
the
administration.
They
persuaded
courts
in New
York,
San
Francisco
and
Washington,
D.C.,
that the
administration
had been
“arbitrary
and
capricious”
in its
actions,
in
violation
of a
federal
law that
requires
policy
changes
to be
done in
an
orderly
way.
If
the
justices
sustain
the
challenges,
the
administration
could
try
again to
end the
program.
A
lawsuit
in Texas
claiming
that
DACA is
illegal
also
would be
likely
to go
forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|