U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump over 'Dreamers' immigrants

2MoreYears · 12:46 PM

A more complete report.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to President Donald Trump, requiring his administration to maintain protections he has sought to end for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children.

The justices refused to hear the administration's appeal of a federal judge's Jan. 9 injunction that halted Trump's move to rescind a program that benefits immigrants known as "Dreamers" implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. Under the Republican president's action, the protections were due to start phasing out beginning in March.

In a brief order, the justices did not explain their reasoning, but said the appeal was "denied without prejudice," indicating they will maintain an open mind on the underlying legal issue still being considered by a lower court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court also said it expects the lower court to "proceed expeditiously to decide this case."

Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, roughly 700,000 young adult, mostly Hispanics, are protected from deportation and given work permits for two-year periods, after which they must re-apply.

The Trump administration had challenged a nationwide injunction by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled last month that DACA must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.

In an unusual move, the administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court instead of going first to a federal appeals court.

Alsup ruled that the challengers, including the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota and Obama's former homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration's decision to end DACA was arbitrary.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said in a statement that the administration will continue to defend the Department of Homeland Security's "lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner."

O'Malley said that "while we were hopeful for a different outcome," the high court rarely agrees to take up cases before a lower court has ruled, "though in our view it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA."

'FULLY LEGAL'

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, called the administration's bid to bypass the 9th Circuit, which has ruled again Trump on other matters, "unusual and unnecessary."

"We look forward to explaining to the Ninth Circuit court that DACA is fully legal. For the sake of the Dreamers who help make our economy and our state strong, the rescission of DACA should not be allowed to stand," Becerra said in a statement.

The DACA dispute is the latest major case brought to the Supreme Court for its consideration arising from Trump's immigration policies. The justices are due to hear arguments in April on the legality of his latest travel ban order barring entry to people from several Muslim-majority nations.

Congress so far has failed to pass legislation to address the fate of the "Dreamers," including a potential path to citizenship.

Trump's move to rescind DACA prompted legal challenges by Democratic state attorneys general and various organizations and individuals in multiple federal courts. His administration argued that Obama exceeded his powers under the Constitution when he bypassed Congress and created DACA.

On Feb. 13, a second U.S. judge issued a similar injunction ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn acted in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs including a group of states led by New York.

Judges Alsup and Garaufis did not say that the administration could not at some point end the program, only that there was evidence it did not follow the correct procedures in doing so.

The rulings allow those who had previously applied for protections and whose two-year status was soon to expire to apply beyond the deadline set by the administration in September.

The original plan put on hold by the court rulings said that only those who re-applied by October and whose status was due to expire by March 5 could re-apply.

The administration is not processing new applications.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1GA1UO

Michcio07 · 02-26-2018, 12:30 PM

I think this is the worst thing that could happen to us.. we had the time to file extension already. Now deadline that congress can act on is gone... which means they won’t deal with it because they don’t have to....

2MoreYears · 12:39 PM

So it indeed looks like USCIS is not accepting new DACA applications.

Quote:

Feb. 14, 2018, Update: USCIS is not accepting requests from individuals who have never before been granted deferred action under DACA. Due to federal court orders on Jan. 9, 2018 and Feb. 13, 2018, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA. The scope of the Feb. 13 preliminary injunction issued in the Eastern District of New York is the same as the Jan. 9 preliminary injunction issued in the Northern District of California. Unless otherwise provided in this guidance, the DACA policy will be operated on the terms in place before it was rescinded on Sept. 5, 2017, until further notice. ...

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/d...ary-injunction

Demise · 02-26-2018, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michcio07

I think this is the worst thing that could happen to us.. we had the time to file extension already. Now deadline that congress can act on is gone... which means they won’t deal with it because they don’t have to....

Think of this way, we're not against a wall anymore and Trump's narrative has collapsed.

How will he argue undoing DACA again this time in accordance to the Administrative Procedures Act if he's claim is that democrats don't care about us?

Also lets not fool ourselves, nothing remotely acceptable would pass under this Russian plant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MoreYears

So it indeed looks like USCIS is not accepting new DACA applications.

Yes, this is because the injunction is only meant to prevent "immediate harm", which is why they're only doing renewals because losing their jobs would suck. If the lawsuit succeeds then DACA is restored fully (new applications and AP) for at least 60 days it'd take to go through the comment period and all.

DreamerSD23 · 02-26-2018, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michcio07

I think this is the worst thing that could happen to us.. we had the time to file extension already. Now deadline that congress can act on is gone... which means they won’t deal with it because they don’t have to....

I think it depends on how badly Trump wants his wall.

This may force him to drop the more onerous parts of the demands, like stopping family petitions, which the Democrats will never agree to.

Michcio07 · 02-26-2018, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamerSD23

I think it depends on how badly Trump wants his wall.

This may force him to drop the more onerous parts of the demands, like stopping family petitions, which the Democrats will never agree to.

Let’s hope you are right... I say just reinstate 245i extension for DACA.... no need of a new law... all the text of it already exist and it’s been old law too... but meh wishful thinking...

Smooth · 02-26-2018, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamerSD23

I think it depends on how badly Trump wants his wall.

This may force him to drop the more onerous parts of the demands, like stopping family petitions, which the Democrats will never agree to.

I agree.

Smooth · 02-26-2018, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demise

Think of this way, we're not against a wall anymore and Trump's narrative has collapsed.

How will he argue undoing DACA again this time in accordance to the Administrative Procedures Act if he's claim is that democrats don't care about us?

Also lets not fool ourselves, nothing remotely acceptable would pass under this Russian plant.

Yes, this is because the injunction is only meant to prevent "immediate harm", which is why they're only doing renewals because losing their jobs would suck. If the lawsuit succeeds then DACA is restored fully (new applications and AP) for at least 60 days it'd take to go through the comment period and all.

This is just delaying the inevitable dude. A lot will be without status by early 2020 or so. You want to guarantee me that Trump will lose in the next electiin?

MIdreamer · 02-26-2018, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

This is just delaying the inevitable dude. A lot will be without status by early 2020 or so. You want to guarantee me that Trump will lose in the next electiin?

You want to guarantee that something will pass in this Congress? If the inevitable is not extended, people will start losing status now.

Busybee · 02-26-2018, 12:49 PM

Do you guys think that the SCOTUS's decision not to hear the case will result in Trump negotiating in a more reasonable manner? like dropping off making changes to family reunification and just settle for his wall and border security? I surely hope so, although I am happy that the court system has bought us more time to survive at least until the next presidential elections.

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

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

August

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump over 'Dreamers' immigrants