More good news from the U.S. Supreme Court for DACA recipients and others

In Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the U.S. Supreme Court held the Trump Administration did not properly terminate the DACA program. The Court’s decision was split 5-4, with Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomajor joining in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. The decision relies on procedural errors, including the failure by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an adequate reasons for terminating the program. The Court concluded the DHS was stuck with the original reasons for termination, which it found were arbitrary and capricious, and failed to address important factors. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

 “Justice Holmes famously wrote that ‘[m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.’ Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143 (1920). But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that ‘the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people.’ St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208, 229 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted. This is not the case for cutting corners to allow DHS to rely upon reasons absent from its original decision.” (Opn., pg. 17.) 

An Obama-era program, DACA was established in 2012 and is available to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16, have lived in the U.S. since June, 2007, were enrolled in high school or graduated, and have not been convicted of certain offenses. Over 700,000 individuals applied for relief, which included federal benefits. In 2014, the eligibility requirements were expanded to include parents of U.S. Citizens or lawful permanent residents. 4.3 million parents became eligible for forbearance. Approximately 202,500 Dreamers and their families are impacted by today’s decision. Those individuals who met the criteria became eligible for renewable, two-year grants of “deferred action” from removal. 

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed the program had been created “without proper authority.” Former acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Elaine Duke, said the program would be phased out. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen later announced the program would be phased out, arguing the program increased the risk of undermining public confidence in the rule of law.

The plaintiffs argued the phase-out violated the Administrative Procedural Act. Amicus briefs were filed by 143 businesses and companies, including Tim Cook, CEO of Appeal claiming the phase-out will harm the economy. Apple employs 443 Dreamers from 25 countries and four continent. One amicus brief noted that the loss of the DACA program would result in increased costs of $6.3 billion to hire and retrain replacements.

Chief Justice Roberts expressly declined to address whether DACA or its recision are sound policies. Since the decision is based on procedural flaws, the Trump Administration could renew its efforts to rescind DACA, but that effort could take months or years. In that period of time, we may have a new administration or the current protests may encourage the Administration to rethink its earlier decision.

 Sara Horta, a DACA recipient living in Washington, DC said: 

“This ruling blocks Trump’s attempt to end DACA and unnecessarily place hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients on the pathway to deportation. Despite Trump’s efforts to villainize and attack immigrants, my community is strong and resilient and we will not go away quietly.  

We will not wait around for Trump and Stephen Miller to come up with another misguided plan to terminate DACA or enact other anti-immigration policies. Instead, we will make sure that Donald Trump is a one-term president and Republicans who rubber-stamped his racist agenda are also defeated in November.”

You can access the decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf.