Supreme Court declines to hear DACA case

The Supreme Court declined to hear a Trump administration appeal of a lower court's ruling, thereby maintaining protections for the roughly 700,000 young people who are recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 

Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters/File
'Dreamers,' recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, meet with relatives during the 'Keep Our Dream Alive' binational meeting at a section of the US-Mexico border in Sunland Park, New Mexico, on Dec. 10, 2017. On Monday Feb. 26, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court decision mandating the continuation of DACA.

The US Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to President 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 Mr. Trump's move to rescind a program that benefits immigrants known as "Dreamers" implemented by former President Barack Obama in 2012. Under Trump'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 high court also said it expects that appeals court to "proceed expeditiously to decide this case."

Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, roughly 700,000 young adult, mostly Latinos, are granted protection from deportation and given work permits for two-year periods, after which they must re-apply. A total of about 1.8 million people are eligible for the program, a sizable fraction of the more than 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

Trump's administration had appealed a Jan. 9 nationwide injunction by San Francisco-based US District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that the DACA program 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.

Mr. Alsup ruled that the challengers, including the states of California, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota and Mr. 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."

Mr. 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."

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 9th 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," Mr. Becerra said in a statement.

The DACA dispute is the second major case the Supreme Court will hear in the coming months 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 US  judge issued a similar injunction ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place. US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn acted in a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs including a group of states led by New York.

Alsup and Mr. 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 reapplied by October and whose status was due to expire by March 5 could reapply.

The administration is not processing new applications.

This story was reported by Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.