Supreme Court Rules for Dramers v. Trump

Supreme Court Rules for Dramers v. Trump
In a major rebuke to President Trump, the US Supreme Court. It has blocked the administration's plan to end an Obama-era program that saved more than 600,000 so-called dreamers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing his opinion.

Under the Obama program, eligible people who were brought to America as US children receive temporary legal status if they graduate from high school or are militarily discharged, and if they have a background Undergo investigation. Just a few months after assuming office, Trump moved to cancel the program, only to be blocked by lower courts and now the Supreme Court.

Roberts' opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration tried to overturn a program known as Childhood Arrows, or deferred action for DACA.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its termination has sound policies," Roberts wrote. "Knowledge of those decisions is not our concern. We only address this here if the administration complies with the procedural requirements of the law which insist on a 'reasonable description of its action'."

In 2017, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply stated that DACA was illegal and unconstitutional. "Such an open perimeter of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch," he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be terminated because he said it was illegal from the start.

But, as Roberts stated, the Attorney General did not offer a detailed justification for repealing DACA. Nor did Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, who issued a memo announcing the end of the decoy, based solely on the sessions' view that the program was illegal.

As Roberts said, Duke's memos did not address the fact that thousands of youth had come to rely on the program, enrolling in degree programs, starting careers, starting businesses, buying homes, and even To marry and take 200,000. Own children who are US citizens do not mention that DACA recipients pay $ 60 billion in taxes each year.

Roberts said that none of these concerns are "operative", but should be addressed. The fact that they were not addressed was a decision to end DACA "arbitrary and scary", he wrote. None of the justifications the administration offered after the fact were inadequate, including a memorandum issued by Karstgen Nielsen, the then Secretary of Homeland Security. The memo, Roberts said, was essentially too short, too late. An agency must defend its function based on the reasons it gave at the time it did it, rather than when the case is already in court.

Roberts clarified that an administration could end a program like DACA, and in fact immigration experts disagreed with that end result. The problem for the administration was that it never wanted to take responsibility for abolishing DACA and instead blamed the Obama administration for the "illegal and unconstitutional" program.

The president of the court did not address that issue. Instead, says immigration law professor Lucas Guttatague, most judges seemed to say "why should the court be the bad guy" when the administration "will not be held accountable" for explicitly explaining the justification for saving DACA . Politics? Cancellation?

Robert's opinion was accompanied by four liberal court judges, Ruth Beder Zinsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote separately stating that while he agreed that the termination of DACA was a violation of the law for the procedural reasons described by the Chief Justice, it would allow litigants to return to lower courts, arguing that DACA Also termed unconstitutional discrimination.

Judge Clarence Thomas wrote the chief dissent, accusing Roberts of writing political rather than legal opinion. Judges Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joined him, as well as individual dissidents, brought by Alito and Judge Brett Kavanuagh.

In a tweet, Trump criticized the decision as "a terrible and politically charged decision coming out of the Supreme Court." The President also asked, "Do you have a feeling that the Supreme Court has not liked me?"

On the other hand, the alleged Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, welcomed the verdict and said in a statement, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory possible for the courage and resistance of thousands of beneficiaries of the DACA." Joe bravely stood up and refused to ignore him. "

In an interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, Ken Cuccinelli, a senior Trump administration official who oversees immigration and citizenship at the Department of Homeland Security, said Trump is considering his options.

"I hope you see some action from the administration," he said: "He is not a man who sits in his hands."

While the decision gives a lifeline to DACA and its hundreds of thousands of recipients, the problem is solved. The court decided that the way Trump repealed DACA was illegal, but all judges agreed that the president had the authority to cancel the program properly.

For the immediate future of DACA, the consensus among immigration experts is that Trump does not have enough time to try again before January to end the program. Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Lohr, author of a 21-volume treatise on immigration law, says: "It's not remotely possible before the election. But if [Trump] is reelected, he certainly will Will return. "To try to cancel DACA".

However, for now, more people eligible for DACA status can apply. Yale Law School Clinic co-director and Immigrants Rights Marisol Orihuela, to protect workers, says the administration has refused to accept new applications since 2017. But he believes this will change now. "We understand that the program resumed in 2012 when it came into force," she says.

Guttatag, who teaches immigration law at Yale and Stanford University, says that if Trump is not reelected, a new administration could repair the "damage" that he says has inflamed immigrants during the Trump administration . . But he says the immigration system is "completely shattered" and needs "fundamental reform".

Politically, Thursday's decision went as expected, with anti-immigrant groups condemning the decision and DACA recipients happy and relieved.

But many Republicans are relieved to move away from the president. If Thursday's decision were to the contrary, the pressure on Congressional Republicans to pass legislation protecting DREAMers would have intensified.

DACA is a surprisingly popular program, showing 85% support among Democratic and independent voters in recent elections, and an even larger majority among Republican voters.

In fact, 200 large corporations filed briefs in the Supreme Court supporting DACA beneficiaries. One of them was Microsoft, a plaintiff in one of the cases leading up to the Supreme Court and its president, Brad Smith.

"Over 30,000 DACA enrols are working in the healthcare sector alone. We need these people today," he said. "Every time I meet him, I have the same reaction. We are lucky for him as a country."

Not all DACA critics are against the substance of DACA. Instead, Obama was unilaterally implemented the program via an executive order, somewhat disheartened by the fact that Congress was inactive. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute warns of unintended consequences if the president can create new programs that a difficult time for future administrations will be uncontrolled.

He said, "It deepens the problems of executive power and, in fact, establishes a shaft by which statutory changes can be made by executive order of the President, but only to be solved by jumping through various administrative law constraints." Might, "he said.

At the end of the day, the man of the moment is Chief Justice Roberts. Between a political and polarized society, he has repeatedly tried to portray the court politically. He sees an increase of organizations on the extreme right, like the Judicial Crisis Network, and the extreme left, such as Demand Justice, each of which tries to fill the court by stacking the court with like-minded judges or expanding the number of judges . .

The faculty professor stated, "These decisions underline that we have a chairman of the tribunal who is working hard to show to the American people that the tribunal, unlike the other two branches, is doing its job and its own Is doing at full capacity. " Law School Richard Lazarus, who has known the President of Justice for decades. "He wants the American people to believe that there is something called law and justice. His job is to implement it."

Post a Comment

0 Comments