• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

July

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

Days before SCOTUS meets on DACA petition, new injunction complicates debate

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›
#1
02-15-2018, 10:05 AM
Senior Member
Joined in May 2006
6,569 posts
Ianus's Avatar
Ianus
Ianus
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ianus
Find all posts by Ianus
0 AP
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKCN1FY32B
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to conference Friday on the Justice Department’s request for review of a Jan. 9 preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco, who ordered the Trump administration temporarily to leave in place an Obama-era program that allows young adults brought illegally to the U.S. as children to obtain two-year deferrals from the threat of deportation. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn complicated the justices’ debate by issuing a second nationwide injunction barring rescission of the DACA program.

How Judge Garaufis’ ruling will impact Supreme Court deliberations on the Justice Department’s petition for review of the Alsup injunction is not at all obvious. Remember, the Justice Department wants the court to do something extraordinary, leapfrogging the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take up an interlocutory trial court decision. As I’ve explained, the government’s primary rationale is that Judge Alsup was so manifestly wrong – both in claiming authority to second-guess the government’s rescission of DACA and in concluding the rollback was probably a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act – that the Supreme Court should act expeditiously to save everyone the trouble of continuing to litigate DACA rescission challenges around the country.

If Judge Garaufis had disagreed with Judge Alsup, his decision would have borne out the government’s criticism of the San Francisco injunction and justified the Justice Department’s request for immediate attention from the Supreme Court. A split between the judges would have allowed the government to call on the justices to resolve DACA’s legality before more muddling in the lower courts.

But Judge Garaufis ended up in the same destination as Judge Alsup (although they traveled slightly different routes to get there). So for the government, the only benefit of Garaufis’ ruling is its proof that other courts are indeed wrestling with DACA.


The Justice Department declined my request for comment on the Supreme Court implications of Judge Garaufis’ decision. It also declined to say whether it would file a supplemental brief on the Brooklyn ruling to the Supreme Court docket. As of 3 p.m. Wednesday, the Justice Department hadn’t filed anything.

Neither had the state of California, the regents of the University of California or several individual DACA recipients who filed briefs opposing the government’s request for Supreme Court review – but I think Judge Garaufis’ ruling offers stronger support for their arguments than for the Justice Department’s position. In essence, the opposition briefs urge the justices to allow the usual appellate process to play out before they take up the DACA issue.

The court, their briefs said, has previously granted review before judgment in a mere handful of cases, all in times of grave constitutional or judicial crisis. It’s been nearly 30 years since the justices last agreed to hear a case before a federal circuit weighed in. The opposition briefs called for the justices to defer to established protocols and allow the 9th Circuit to decide the government’s appeal of Judge Alsup’s injunction – which the Justice Department did not move to stay – before the Supreme Court takes the case.

Now, if the Supreme Court were to grant review of Judge Alsup’s injunction and hear the merits of the government’s decision to rescind DACA, it would be jumping over not just the 9th Circuit, which has expedited the appeal of Alsup’s decision, but also the 2nd Circuit, which would hear any appeal of Judge Garaufis’ injunction. Skipping one federal appeals is exceedingly rare. Skipping two seems to be unprecedented.

The best argument against granting the Justice Department’s petition is institutionalism: Even extremely important cases that are clearly headed for the Supreme Court are expected to follow the well-worn appellate pathway. I’d argue the new injunction decision bolsters the wisdom of convention.
It should be interesting what the Supreme Court comes up with tomorrow.
__________________
We shall win our Dream!
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#2
02-15-2018, 10:11 AM
Junior Member
Joined in Sep 2017
14 posts
NTee
NTee
View Public Profile
Send a private message to NTee
Find all posts by NTee
0 AP
English please
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#3
02-15-2018, 10:24 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2016
3,631 posts
eva02's Avatar
eva02
eva02
View Public Profile
Send a private message to eva02
Find all posts by eva02
0 AP
They’ll make a decision tomorrow but it probably won’t go public until the 20th
__________________
Expiration: 04/09/2020
Renewal Accepted: 02/05/2019
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#4
02-15-2018, 10:35 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Sep 2017
2,017 posts
Red neck's Avatar
Red neck
Red neck
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Red neck
Find all posts by Red neck
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTee View Post
English please
From my understanding, the DOJ submitted some special paper to skip two higher courts and go straight to the supreme court. Tomorrow they are making a decision to that submission.(DOJ trying to speed things up)

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
__________________
https://twitter.com/Theytukerrrjobs
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#5
02-15-2018, 10:37 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2016
3,631 posts
eva02's Avatar
eva02
eva02
View Public Profile
Send a private message to eva02
Find all posts by eva02
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red neck View Post
From my understanding, the DOJ submitted some special paper to skip two higher courts and go straight to the supreme court. Tomorrow they are making a decision to that submission.(DOJ trying to speed things up)

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, and what was most shocking was that the DOJ did not request a stay on the decision.
__________________
Expiration: 04/09/2020
Renewal Accepted: 02/05/2019
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#6
02-15-2018, 10:45 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jul 2017
2,722 posts
Copper's Avatar
Copper
Copper
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Copper
Find all posts by Copper
0 AP
So what does this mean? The Supreme Court might cancel it today?
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#7
02-15-2018, 10:48 AM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,456 posts
Swim19's Avatar
Swim19
Swim19
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Swim19
Find all posts by Swim19
190 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copper View Post
So what does this mean? The Supreme Court might cancel it today?
No, the decision is not about canceling the injunction that's allowing renewals. The decision is whether to take up the case right away instead of allowing it first to go through the lower courts.
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#8
02-15-2018, 10:49 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jul 2017
2,722 posts
Copper's Avatar
Copper
Copper
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Copper
Find all posts by Copper
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swim19 View Post
No, the decision is not about canceling the injunction that's allowing renewals. The decision is whether to take up the case right away instead of allowing it first to go through the lower courts.
Oh ok thanks for clearing that up Swim. I figured they would take it and put some type of injunction to stop it right away.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#9
02-15-2018, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jan 2007
661 posts
tays123
tays123
View Public Profile
Send a private message to tays123
Find all posts by tays123
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swim19 View Post
No, the decision is not about canceling the injunction that's allowing renewals. The decision is whether to take up the case right away instead of allowing it first to go through the lower courts.
Yes. And since there is now a second ruling that is the same way, they are probably not going to take it up.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#10
02-15-2018, 12:41 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Aug 2012
409 posts
nationalsfan
nationalsfan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to nationalsfan
Find all posts by nationalsfan
0 AP
I'm wondering why they haven't asked for a stay of the decision yet? If the SC declines to take it up, will they ask for a stay then?
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.