DREAM Act Portal Forum - Jeh Johnson Letter to Trump (in WSJ)

DREAM Act Portal Forum (http://dreamact.info/forum/index.php)

- The News Room (http://dreamact.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)

- - Jeh Johnson Letter to Trump (in WSJ) (http://dreamact.info/forum/showthread.php?t=77573)

Jeh Johnson Letter to Trump (in WSJ)

Quote:

The attorneys general of 10 states have written the U.S. Justice Department in recent months, threatening to sue the federal government unless it ends the policy of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The states have given the administration until September 5 to decide to end DACA or face a lawsuit. Thus, now is the time for President Trump to make a decision about the policy’s future; he should continue DACA and instruct his attorney general to defend it in court.

Mr. Trump’s experience in the business world should help him understand his role in the coming legal conflict. The attorney general is the top lawyer for the U.S. government, and the president is its CEO. It is the prerogative of the president to instruct his attorney general to defend his administration’s policies whenever there is a good-faith legal basis to do so. The DACA challenges present one such opportunity.

Quote:

If the states sue, they will argue that legal logic of the court decisions striking down a policy called DAPA requires that DACA suffer the same fate. I know about DAPA—Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens—as I was its author in 2014. There are important legal and factual differences between DACA and DAPA.

First, unlike DAPA, which was challenged and enjoined in court before it went into effect, DACA has existed for more than five years and has survived court challenge. Second, our loss in court over DAPA was a narrow one. The trial judge who heard the case enjoined DAPA. Then, of the 12 appellate judges at the circuit and Supreme Court level who heard the case over the course of three separate hearings, six ruled one way and six ruled the other. Because of a vacancy on the high court, the justices split 4-4, resulting in an affirmance of the injunction. Finally, unlike DAPA, which would have potentially benefited about four million people, DACA is a far narrower policy that covers about one million people.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/have-a-...urt-1502144369