Judge Orders Trump Administration To Restore DACA As It Existed Under Obama

NPR

VANESSA ROMO

People demonstrate in June in Los Angeles in favor of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Immigrant rights advocates hailed a Friday court ruling allowing new applications as a "huge victory for people who have been waiting to apply for DACA for the first time."

Damian Dovarganes/AP

A federal judge has reversed the Trump administration's latest round of rules placing further limits on the Obama-era program that shields undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children from deportation.

Under the order filed Friday, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn instructed the Department of Homeland Security to begin accepting new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as soon as Monday.

In his ruling, Garaufis said the terms of the federal program must be immediately restored to what they were "prior to the attempted rescission of September 2017" when the White House began a series of maneuvers to dismantle the program.

The judge also instructed officials to reinstate two-year permits for qualifying applicants. Over the summer, the administration had begun issuing one-year permits.

DACA currently protects about 640,000 undocumented young immigrants. As of July, an estimated 300,000 young people living in the U.S. are eligible for the program and still waiting for a chance to apply. That includes 55,000 who have aged into eligibility over the last three years.

NATIONAL

Judge Rules Acting DHS Secretary Lacked Authority To Suspend DACA Program

"The ruling is a huge victory for people who have been waiting to apply for DACA for the first time," Veronica Garcia, staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said in a statement.

She added that acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf's "decision to suspend the program was just another attempt by the Trump administration to wield its extremely racist and anti-immigrant views and policies."

Garaufis' decision is the latest court ruling against the administration.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's 2017 attempt to end DACA, saying the administration's reasoning was "arbitrary and capricious." In July, a federal court in Maryland also ordered the administration to start accepting new applicants.

THE INDICATOR FROM PLANET MONEY

What Biden Could Do On Immigration

But 11 days later, Wolf issued a memorandum cutting renewal permits from two years to one and blocking all new applications.

That prompted a November ruling by Garaufis saying that Wolf was not lawfully serving as DHS acting secretary when he issued the changes "because the Department of Homeland Security failed to follow its order of succession, as it was lawfully designated under the Homeland Security Act."

As a result, Garaufis vacated the changes initiated by Wolf.

Wolf has been serving as acting secretary since November 2019; he has not been confirmed by the Senate. Kirstjen Nielsen, who resigned in April 2019, was the last DHS secretary to be confirmed by the Senate.

Court documents said that DHS has until Monday to post a public notice "displayed prominently on its website and on the websites of all other relevant agencies, that it is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under DACA."

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s bid to end DACA, a win for undocumented ‘dreamers’

WASHINGTON POST

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, a reprieve for nearly 650,000 recipients known as “dreamers.”

The 5-to-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., stunned President Trump, who said in a tweet that it and a ruling earlier this week that federal law protects LGBTQ workers were “shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.”Roberts was in the majority in both cases, and Thursday’s ruling showed once again the pivotal role he now plays at the center of the court.

His low-key ruling was technical — the administration had not provided proper legal justification, he said, for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by President Barack Obama eight years ago. It allows qualified enrollees to work, study and remain in the United States on a renewable permit.  Roberts has at times joined the court’s liberal members — as happened Thursday — to make clear for the president that his administration does not make the rules.

Roberts wrote: 

“The dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

He added: “We address only whether the [Department of Homeland Security] complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”

That goes well beyond whether hundreds of thousands of people would remain protected from deportation, Roberts wrote.

“Since 2012, DACA recipients have enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA program, Roberts wrote, quoting from briefs in the case.

“The consequences of the rescission, [advocates] emphasize, would ‘radiate outward’ to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.-citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.
. . . In addition, excluding DACA recipients from the lawful labor force may, they tell us, result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years.”

While the program does not provide a direct path to citizenship, it provides a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years and can be renewed.

Technically, the Trump administration could restart the process and provide the justification the court’s majority said was required. But the process is long, and there is no evidence Congress would want to pass legislation that would end the program.

In fact, it is quite popular with the public. A Pew Research survey conducted this month found that 74 percent of Americans favored granting permanent legal status to immigrants who came illegally to the United States when they were children, while 24 percent opposed.

A 57 percent majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expressed support, as did 89 percent of Democrats. Other polls have found similar results.