Donald TrumpSupreme Court Denies Trump’s Appeal to Speed End of DACA
New York Times
10 mins ago
WASHINGTON
— The Supreme Court on Monday declined to clear the way for the Trump
administration to end the Obama-era program that protects about 700,000
young immigrants from deportation, meaning that the so-called “Dreamers”
could remain in legal limbo for months unless Congress acts to make
their status permanent.
President Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program last September,
calling it an unconstitutional use of executive power by his
predecessor and reviving the threat of deportation for immigrants who
had been brought to the United States illegally as young children.
But
two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major
pieces of the program while legal challenges move forward, notably by
requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew
their protected status. The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday not to
hear the government’s appeal will keep the program alive for months.
That
will temporarily shield the young immigrants who already had signed up
for the DACA program from immediate deportation, and allow them to keep
working legally in the United States. Their status lasts for two years
and is renewable.
The
court’s decision also could relieve the immediate political pressure on
lawmakers to permanently address the status of those immigrants, or to
deal with the additional one million Dreamers who had never signed up
for the DACA program. They remain at risk of deportation if immigration
agents find them.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Even
as he ended the DACA program last September, Mr. Trump had called upon
Congress to give the young immigrants legal status, and an eventual path
to citizenship, before the program was scheduled to expire on March 5.
But
that proposal has bogged down in partisan gridlock as members of
Congress argue about broader changes to the nation’s immigration system
that the president and his conservative allies in Congress have demanded
as part of any deal to address the future of the young immigrants.
Earlier this month, senators failed to reach consensus in a series of votes on bills to address the Dreamers and other immigration issues.
A bipartisan coalition in the Senate roundly rejected a measure backed
by Mr. Trump that would have all-but ended the family-based migration
system that has been in place for decades. A separate bipartisan measure
that would have legalized the dreamers and allocated $25 billion for a
border wall fell six votes short of the 60 needed to proceed to a final
vote.
If
the Supreme Court had decided to allow the Trump administration to
formally end the program on March 5, lawmakers would have been facing a
difficult challenge to resolve their ideological differences by next
Monday. That would have been even more difficult because lawmakers are also grappling with how to respond to the Florida school shooting.
Now,
the court’s action is likely to push the debate beyond the midterm
elections in November, as lawmakers in both parties often seek to avoid
making highly controversial policy decisions just before they face their
constituents at the ballot box.
Graphic
Dreamers’ Fate Is Now Tied to Border Wall and Other G.O.P. Immigration Demands
Lawmakers are working to extend legal protections for
undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as
children, but the discussion is complicated by other issues on the
table.
Mr.
Trump has repeatedly condemned Democrats in recent days, accusing them
of not caring about the young immigrants. In one recent tweet, he said
that Republicans “stand ready to make a deal” to protect the Dreamers
from deportation.
But
Democrats, and some Republicans, accuse Mr. Trump and his hard-line
conservative White House advisers of using the dreamers as leverage for
changes to the immigration system that conservative, anti-immigrant
activists have long sought.
Advocates
for immigrants, including groups that represent Dreamers, say lawmakers
should reject proposals like the one from Mr. Trump that would boost
border security, end the ability for immigrants to bring their parents
and siblings to the United States, and dismantle a visa program for
immigrants from underrepresented countries.
The result is a stalemate with members from both parties expressing doubt about a quick resolution.
The
court’s decision not to hear the administration’s appeal was expected,
as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue. The court’s order was
brief, gave no reasons and noted no dissents. It urged the appeals court
to “proceed expeditiously.”
The
administration did not seek stays of the injunctions entered in the
lower courts, and they will remain in place for the time being, allowing
much of the program to survive beyond the March 5 deadline.
In a statement, the Justice Department said it would continue to make its legal arguments as the case proceeds.
“While
we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely
grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view it was warranted
for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland
Security to maintain DACA,” said Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for the
department. “We will continue to defend DHS’ lawful authority to wind
down DACA in an orderly manner.”
Lawyers for the challengers expressed satisfaction with Monday’s developments.
“We
are pleased that the Supreme Court is allowing the normal appellate
process to run its course,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who
represents people affected by the program. “DACA is a lawful and
important program that protects young people who came to this country as
children and who know this country as their only home. The Dreamers
have relied on DACA to make decisions about their education, jobs, and
families and to make valuable contributions to society as doctors,
lawyers, teachers, and members of the military.”
The
case at the Supreme Court was brought in California by five sets of
plaintiffs. They included four states — California, Maine, Maryland and
Minnesota — and Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of
California. As secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama
administration, Ms. Napolitano signed the document that established the
program in 2012.
In January, Judge William H. Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the administration had abused its discretion and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn issued a similar ruling this month.
The
judges acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the
policies of earlier administrations. But they said the Trump
administration’s justifications for rescinding the program did not
withstand scrutiny.
The
administration had argued that the program was an unconstitutional
exercise of authority by the executive branch, relying on a ruling from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New
Orleans, concerning a related program. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of that ruling.
The
judges said the two programs differed in important ways, undermining
the administration’s legal analysis. They noted, too, that Mr. Trump had
issued conflicting statements about the DACA program.
Both
judges issued nationwide injunctions ordering the administration to
retain major elements of the program while the cases moved forward. Such
nationwide injunctions from judges in individual cases, which have been
used to block executive actions in both the Obama and Trump
administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism.
The
judges required the administration to accept renewal applications but
not new ones, and they said the administration need not allow existing
participants to return to the United States after traveling abroad. They
also noted that the administration retained broad powers to make
individualized decisions based on national security, public safety and
other factors.
The
administration appealed Judge Alsup’s ruling to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and that court put
the appeal on a fast track. In an unusual move, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant immediate review, leapfrogging the appeals court.
That
procedure, called “certiorari before judgment,” is used rarely,
typically in cases involving national crises like President Harry S.
Truman’s seizure of the steel industry and President Richard M. Nixon’s
refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.
In a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny review,
lawyers for the University of California wrote that “it has been nearly
30 years since the court granted certiorari before judgment without the
benefit of a court of appeals ruling on the question presented.”
In a second brief, lawyers for the four states wrote that no national emergency warranted use of the unusual procedure.
“Since
2012, the DACA program has allowed hundreds of thousands of young
people to receive deferred action, work authorization and other
benefits,” they wrote. “The district court’s preliminary injunction only
partially and temporarily restores the situation that existed before
petitioners’ abrupt decision to terminate the program — and only for
individuals who had already received deferred action under DACA.”
“Petitioners
are entitled to a prompt appeal,” the brief said, “but there is no
imminent deadline posing a critical threat to the public interest of the
sort that might justify bypassing the normal channels for that review.”
In the administration’s brief,
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that “an ongoing
violation of federal law being committed by some 700,000 aliens”
required the Supreme Court to act. But he did not ask the court to stay
Judge Alsup’s injunction while the case moved forward. Mr. Francisco
wrote that an immediate stay would interfere with the administration’s
goal of an “orderly wind-down” of the program.
No comments:
Post a Comment