DHS v. Regents of the University of California

-
Immigration Law.png

Argument: November 12, 2019

Petitioner Brief: DHS, et al.

Respondent Briefs: California, et al., Regents, et al., D.C., New York, et al., DACA Recipients, et al.

Courts below: U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit.

Courts below: U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit.

The legal battle over DACA: A Preview

This week the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on legal issues related to a highly controversial action by the Trump administration. The federal government declared it will cut the federal DACA program which gives certain undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship in the United States. Three lawsuits challenging the decision to terminate DACA have reached the Supreme Court, and the Justices will address the legal issues together.

DHS v Regents 300ppi.MM.png

What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals?

Deferred action for childhood arrivals (“DACA”) is a program that permits undocumented people to apply for work authorization and protection from deportation in two-year increments. The Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Janet Napolitano first announced the decision to exercise discretion over childhood arrivals’ cases in 2012 and stressed the need for a permanent pathway to lawful status for the population commonly referred to as “Dreamers”. 

To be considered for this temporary protection, applicants had to prove that they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday, that they had resided in the U.S. since June 2007, and that they were either enrolled in/ graduated from school or had military service. Additionally, DHS requires each applicant to submit to a background check and automatically disqualifies anyone who has sustained even a single “significant misdemeanor” (e.g. DUI).

Why does DACA matter?

Aside from the direct benefits of work authorization and protection from immigration enforcement, approximately 800,000 DACA beneficiaries have unlocked opportunities previously unavailable to them. Studies into DACA’s impact consistently find that recipients experience improvements in access to education, employment, healthcare, housing, and in their perceptions of safety. These improvements extend to their families, employers, and surrounding communities.

According to opponents of DACA, the program sends the wrong message to people around the world seeking to enter the country. In other words, the program encourages illegal immigration by giving people who entered illegally a path to citizenship.

Termination of DACA

Leading up to the 2016 presidential elections, then-candidate Donald Trump campaigned on anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump repeatedly promised to rescind DACA protections. On September 5, 2017, Trump appointee Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the administration was rescinding DACA, characterizing it as “executive amnesty” and a “violation of law” and directing Congress to address the benefit through legislation within six months. Congress did not act, and Trump followed the announcement with a tweet that he would “revisit the issue” if Congress failed to “legalize DACA”. DHS announced that it would not consider any DACA applications filed after October 5, 2017, leaving hundreds of thousands of people’s futures uncertain.

The legal challenges

Three lawsuits followed the rescission of the DACA program in California, the District of Columbia, and New York. These cases are now consolidated before the Supreme Court as Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. All three cases argued that the sudden rescission of DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the rights of DACA recipients. All three cases resulting in holdings restoring DACA for those who had already applied.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two core issues: (1) whether the administration’s decision to terminate DACA is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether the decision to terminate DACA was lawful. 

The arguments

Department of Homeland Security’s position is that the creation of DACA was purely a decision of “nonenforcement” of existing law. That is, DHS contends that existing law finds that persons in the United States without authorization are otherwise deportable and ineligible for work authorization. DHS’s decision to rescind its nonenforcement policy, then, is an enforcement decision of the sort traditionally “committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” As such, no explanation is owed to the public. 

The challengers argue that the termination of DACA is reviewable because DHS claimed it was compelled to terminate DACA as a matter of law. In claiming that DHS’s decision was required as a matter of law, it shifted responsibility to the courts to decide what the law is. Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act requires a certain level of transparency so that decisions can be reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Trump administration detailed conflicting reasons, some of which were disclosed after terminating DACA or not disclosed at all. After all, how could Trump tweet he would “revisit” DACA if Congress failed to enshrine protections in a permanent law if the administration truly believed DACA was unlawful?

The challengers also argue that the high stakes for the individuals impacted by the DACA program, decisions to terminate the program should be reviewed to ensure the agency action is not “arbitrary and capricious”. In other words, the reasoning must pass a court’s review to ensure it was not random and impulsive.

The Justices will hear arguments on November 12, 2019.

KM Bio Photo (1 of 1) (1).jpg

Kristina McKibben

McKibben is a co-founder of Community Justice Alliance, a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit defending and amplifying immigrants. She serves as lead counsel on removal defense, humanitarian relief, and family-based petitions before both the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Kristina currently leads a team working to address the representation gap in California's immigrant rich Central Valley. Find more information at: www.cjaca.org.

MORE Immigration Reports:



fromSubscript Law Blog | Subscript Lawhttps://https://ift.tt/2X8GrIX
Subscript Law
4 Curtis Terrace Montclair
NJ 07042
(201) 840-8182
https://ift.tt/2oX7jPi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

California v. Texas (Argument November 10, 2020)

-
Image
Argument: November 10, 2020 Decision: TBA Petitioners’ Brief: California, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Texas, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Neill Hurley and John Nantz Respondents’ Brief: United States, et al. Opinion Below: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals   The Supreme Court Will Determine the Fate of the Affordable Care Act...Again Several individuals and a group of GOP-led states are leading another fight to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They are attacking the Individual Mandate as invalid and then arguing the rest of the ACA falls with it.  The Supreme Court will hear the case on November 10, 2020 joined by its new conservative-leaning justice, Amy Coney Barrett. Background Congress designed the ACA to provide all Americans affordable access to health insurance. Without getting rid of the private insurers, however, the government had to help them keep premiums down.  The Individual Mandate was designed to control costs in the marketplace by...
Read more

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

-
Image
Argument: March 3, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Seila Law Respondent Brief: CFPB (Supporting Seila Law) Amicus Curiae Brief: Paul Clement (defending CFPB’s position) Decision: TBA Opinion Below: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court to determine fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Two years after the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a massive piece of consumer protection legislation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, stating its goal “to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices.” The vote passed in both houses of Congress largely along party lines.  As part of this comprehensive legislation, Congress created a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an executive agency responsible for regulating providers of a wide range of consumer financial services, as well as enforcing federal consumer financial protection...
Read more

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

-
Image
Argument: January 22, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Kendra Espinoza, et al. Respondent Brief: Montana Department of Revenue, et al. Decision: TBA Court below: Supreme Court of the State of Montana Montana faces Establishment Clause questions over a tax credit program Montana established a tax credit program that allows people to donate to a scholarship fund for students attending private schools. In return, the taxpayer receives a matching tax credit of up to $150. The scholarship fund provides scholarships to private school students, including those who attend religious private schools.      Montana’s Department of Revenue was tasked with administering the tax credit program. When it began working to carry out the program, it realized the program — as written by Montana’s legislature — came into conflict with the Montana Constitution.  The Montana Constitution includes a provision called the “Blaine Amendment.” The Blaine Amendment prohibits the state from u...
Read more