From NILC - Potential Scenarios: Legal Threats to DACA

Swim19 · 06:49 PM

Below are some potential future scenarios related to U.S. v. Texas:

Quote:

The federal government decides by September 5, 2017, to rescind the June 15, 2012, DACA memorandum

If the federal government decides to rescind the DACA memorandum, it would likely be on the terms laid out in the June 29, 2017, letter to Attorney General Sessions from Texas and nine other states (see above). In that case, after the memorandum is rescinded, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would issue no new grants or renewals of DACA, and existing grants of DACA and accompanying work permits would expire on their current expiration dates.

• The federal government does not rescind the June 15, 2012, DACA memorandum

In their June 29, 2017, letter to Attorney General Sessions, Texas and nine other states said that if the federal government does not agree by Sept. 5, 2017, to rescind the June 15, 2012, DACA memorandum, they will seek to amend their complaint in U.S. v. Texas to add a legal challenge to DACA. Texas and its partner states may also seek to have the DACA program preliminarily enjoined (halted) while their challenge winds its way through the courts. Judge Hanen previously granted Texas’s requested preliminary injunction against the DAPA and DACA+ programs, indicating that he may be receptive to a similar request with respect to the original DACA program.

It is unclear how long it would take for the court to hear and rule on such a request. It is also unclear whether, as before, Judge Hanen would issue a preliminary injunction that is nationwide in scope or how an injunction would affect current DACA recipients.

•*The MALDEF intervenors seek to have Texas v. United States dismissed

On July 28, 2017, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which formally entered the case (intervened) on behalf of individuals who would have been eligible for DAPA, asked the court in the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the case. MALDEF argues that because DAPA and DACA+ have been officially rescinded, there is nothing left in this case to litigate and Texas should not be allowed to amend it to include a challenge to the DACA program.

Briefing on this motion continues. It is unclear when the court will rule on MALDEF’s motion or whether the court will deny the motion and allow Texas to add a legal challenge to the original DACA program.

More info here.

Swim19 · 08-01-2017, 06:23 PM

Here are some potential future scenarios related to ADAC v. Brewer:

Quote:

•*The solicitor general recommends that the Supreme Court not take the case
The federal government argued to the Ninth Circuit that Arizona did not properly raise the issue of DACA’s constitutionality in the federal district court and that the DACA program’s creation and implementation were an exercise of the president’s well-established power as enforcer of the immigration laws. The Ninth Circuit agreed with these positions.

Although the present presidential administration did not create DACA, the solicitor general may choose to adhere, at least in part, to the federal government’s previous opinions and tell the Court that there are no compelling reasons for the Court to disturb the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. However, it’s also possible that the solicitor general might recommend, a few months from now, that the Court not take the case because the government has ended the DACA program voluntarily or because the solicitor general knows that the program will soon be terminated.

Should the Supreme Court decline to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling would stand, but the DACA program would continue to be vulnerable to a potential voluntary termination of the program by the federal government or because of other legal challenges, such as Texas’s promise that it will amend the complaint in U.S. v. Texas (see above).

•*The solicitor general recommends that the Supreme Court take the case
The solicitor general may recommend that the Supreme Court take the case to resolve once and for all the legal issues about DACA’s constitutionality, particularly given the potential legal challenge Texas and nine states have promised to bring.

Should the Court agree to hear the case, it would be asked to decide DACA’s constitutionality. Previously, the Court was unable to reach a majority decision on issues related to whether the DAPA and DACA+ programs were constitutional. At that time, the Court had only an even number of justices—eight. Since then, Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined the Court, so it now has nine members. However, it is worth noting that even if the Court takes the case, it is unclear whether, to resolve the case, it would ultimately need to decide the question of DACA’s constitutionality, since the Court could issue a decision based on other legal principles.

Finally, should the Court take the case, it is unclear when it would ultimately hear oral arguments and then decide it. It is possible that the Court would not decide the case before late June 2018, when its next term ends.

libertarian1776 · 06:35 PM

not really feeling the program halt while they decide the case. sad..

but i have a feeling it will be thrown out.

dtrt09 · 08-01-2017, 06:49 PM

We need a permanent solution. In WA, a group just contacted Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to ask them to co-sponsor the Senate's DA.

Same with Reps. Jayapal, DelBene, Smith, Reichert to ask that they do not delay sponsoring the Hope Act or RAC Act. A friend who works for NW Imm Rights Project said the word in their circles is how much support there is in Congress for DreamAct legislation right now and to not ease on the momentum to pass a bill.

2MoreYears · 08-01-2017, 06:59 PM

citizenship now!!

godsavethequeen · 08-01-2017, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MoreYears

citizenship now!!

Chill out. Even if we get a legislation program it will most likely not be an immediate process and we would have to wait 5 years until citizenship via a green card like everyone else unless you're going the military route. There are no short cuts.

Swim19 · 08-01-2017, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtrt09

We need a permanent solution. In WA, a group just contacted Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to ask them to co-sponsor the Senate's DA.

Same with Reps. Jayapal, DelBene, Smith, Reichert to ask that they do not delay sponsoring the Hope Act or RAC Act. A friend who works for NW Imm Rights Project said the word in their circles is how much support there is in Congress for DreamAct legislation right now and to not ease on the momentum to pass a bill.

What's the word in your friend's circle? That there is a lot of support?

Outsider626 · 08-01-2017, 07:22 PM

All we need is a green card...

made4u · 08-01-2017, 07:53 PM

Ok so on sept 5th daca ends? I mean what are the chances of survival?

dtrt09 · 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swim19

What's the word in your friend's circle? That there is a lot of support?

Yes, for a permanent solution the bipartisan bills can be reconciled and a bicameral, bipartisan solution is within reach. It would have never crossed our minds that four DreamAct bills would be ready for a vote at the same time. Trump's presidency is making it happen. Ironic!

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

July

From NILC - Potential Scenarios: Legal Threats to DACA