Thread: 15 states, DC sue Trump administration over ending DACA

15-State Lawsuit Over DACA Aims to Use Trump's Words Against Him

BY TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE | SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
By Bob Egelko

A group of Democratic-led states is leading a legal challenge to President Trump's planned repeal of a program allowing nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States -- and just as in the court fight over the president's proposed travel ban, the challengers want to use his ethnic broadsides against him.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, lawyers for New York, 14 other states and the District of Columbia cited government data showing that under the program that Trump is seeking to end -- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA -- 78 percent of the immigrants gaining reprieves from deportation have been of Mexican origin.

RELATED

How Ending DACA Could Play Out Across StatesHarvey Has Made Houston More Immigrant-Friendly, But for How Long?Immigrants Cost Taxpayers, Then Pay More Than MostCalifornia Files First 'Sanctuary Cities' Lawsuit From a StateWithout Obama to Sue, What Are Republican AGs Up To?

Mexico, the suit noted, was also featured in the opening salvo of Trump's presidential campaign in 2015, when he declared that immigrants from that country were "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

He said during one presidential debate that Mexican authorities "send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them," and in another debate that he planned to deport "some bad hombres." Last year, he labeled as Mexican a U.S.-born federal judge whose parents emigrated legally from Mexico, and accused the judge of being biased against him in a civil case because Trump wants to build a wall at the border.

"The president has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency," the states said in a suit filed in federal court in New York. The "culmination" of that disparagement, the suit said, would be "ending DACA, whose participants are mostly of Mexican origin."

In other words, they argued, although neither DACA nor Trump's order to abolish it singles out any race or nationality, his intent was to exclude Mexicans, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

It's reminiscent of the argument that some of the same states have used to challenge Trump's ban on U.S. entry of anyone from six nations with mostly Muslim populations: that he revealed his intent in campaign promises to halt Muslim immigration and in a reported request to a presidential adviser to find a legal way to ban Muslims. The argument has won favor with a series of federal courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say after a hearing in October.

"The president's intent (in his DACA order) was demonstrated by his comments. ... That (argument) does have some appeal" and might persuade the courts, said Bill Ong Hing, an immigration law professor at the University of San Francisco.

Another immigration law professor, Pratheepan Gulasekaram of Santa Clara University, said the states' argument was weaker in the DACA case.

"You don't have the direct connection between the statements and the rescission of DACA" that existed in the travel ban, Gulasekaram said. And unlike the earlier case, he said, Trump's lawyers could also point to sympathetic comments he has made about Mexicans and DACA recipients.

But even if the states can't show that Trump's disparaging remarks proved a discriminatory motive, Gulasekaram said, they could provide a "counter-narrative" to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who described the president's actions as steps to save American jobs and protect the public.

The suit comes a day after Trump announced that he would phase out DACA, starting in March, unless the Republican-controlled Congress enacts a law authorizing the program.

President Barack Obama established the program by executive order in 2012, allowing "Dreamers" -- immigrants who had entered the U.S. without authorization before age 16, and had no serious criminal records -- to apply for renewable two-year reprieves from deportation and work permits.

About 230,000 people in California are among those enrolled in DACA. California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, said Tuesday that he would also sue to overturn Trump's order, but the state has not joined the New York lawsuit. Becerra's office did not respond to inquiries Wednesday.

The other states taking part in the suit -- all with Democratic attorneys general -- are: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Each state argued in court papers that repealing DACA would harm thousands of residents, damage their public universities and workplaces, and hurt their economies -- all of which is evidence of the direct impact needed for the right to sue.

In addition, they said, the federal government induced DACA applicants to provide personal identifying information that could be used to locate and deport them. They noted that Trump signed an executive order in January allowing federal agencies to share immigration information with law enforcement agencies.

The suit also contends Trump's order amounts to a change in federal regulations that must be submitted for public notice and comment before it can take effect. A federal judge in Texas relied on a similar argument in 2015 to invalidate Obama's attempt to grant reprieves from deportation to several million parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents.

http://www.governing.com/topics/publ...tes-trump.html

Yep, like I said, they should have announced that it expired on June 15, 2017 by its terms, which it did, and Kelly didn't file a Federal Register notice to extend it. The government can still make that argument of fact in the lawsuit to defend the end of the program and should plan to do so.

You can keep telling us that DACA had expired, that does not make it so. I want to see the facts. I am tired of being told what Trump means or what he is doing. I want facts and proof.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

You can keep telling us that DACA had expired, that does not make it so. I want to see the facts. I am tired of being told what Trump means or what he is doing. I want facts and proof.

I posted all the facts months ago when I heard Sean Spicer say at a White House press conference when asked about DACA by a reporter that the "thinking is we'll let it expire in June". I posted articles, the June 15 2012 initial memorandum signed by Janet Napolitano, the June 5, 2014 memorandum from USCIS that was posted in the Federal Register renewing it for 2 more years, the November 20, 2014 memorandum from Jehnson extending the renewal from 2 years to 3 years which ended the program on June 15, 2017 unless it was renewed again, which would require another posting in the Federal Register. I also posted the link to Judge Hanen's Ruling ordering the DACA 2012 program to remain in effect during the Texas lawsuit.

NC Joins 15 Other States In DACA Lawsuit

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

You can keep telling us that DACA had expired, that does not make it so. I want to see the facts. I am tired of being told what Trump means or what he is doing. I want facts and proof.

You're absolutely right. There never was an actual end-date, expiration date, sunset date, or whatever you want to refer to it as on DACA. Sean Spicer made one fleeting comment about it in a White House news brief once upon a time. Of course there has never been anything else said about it or written that I can find. Sean Spicer either misspoke or was misinformed. JD2 even provided something on here the other day that actually stated there was no end date to DACA.

Trump has always had full authority to cancel the program whenever he wanted to. Of course he unfortunately decided his promise to those poor DACA kids was more important than the promise he made to us, the one who voted him into office.

Oh, and Judge Hanen never did rule that the DACA program couldn't be ended by Trump anytime he wanted to end it. Judy is confusing the actual facts. All he said was he couldn't rule on the issue because it wasn't part of the original lawsuit. However, he did say, point blank, that the program was "most likely" unconstitutional. The lawsuit was on DAPA and the DACA extension (extended work authorizations), not DACA.

Day one was the day to end it in total. No extensions. Trump never wanted to end it and it could be one of the reasons he wanted Jeff Sessions gone as Attorney General. He certainly was upset about the Russia recusal from The Attorney General but DACA could have been a consideration. The threat from the states got the Trump administration to finally move.

It doesn't look good when your president is obsessed with tweeting about his love for illegal aliens. Rather unsettling to read the "heart" for a population hurting those who elected you.

Originally Posted by lorrie

Yes this is true. However, the Federal government has a lot more money in there bank to spend on court fees.

These small time US attorney's and immigration attorneys are doing it for there 15 min in the spotlight

I believe these immigration lawyers are being very well paid. I believe they are being paid by our very own government - I believe they are being paid by corporations who want to keep the illegals here - I believe they are being paid by those people whose aim it is to destroy the sovereignty of this country.

The said thing, I believe the judge are being 'paid' as well, to rule in favor of illegals, or to slow down the process in hopes it will become a moot point somehow.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Day one was the day to end it in total. No extensions. Trump never wanted to end it and it could be one of the reasons he wanted Jeff Sessions gone as Attorney General. He certainly was upset about the Russia recusal from The Attorney General but DACA could have been a consideration. The threat from the states got the Trump administration to finally move.

It doesn't look good when your president is obsessed with tweeting about his love for illegal aliens. Rather unsettling to read the "heart" for a population hurting those who elected you.

Yep, ditto what you said.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

You can keep telling us that DACA had expired, that does not make it so. I want to see the facts. I am tired of being told what Trump means or what he is doing. I want facts and proof.

How about some facts right from the government?

. . . "DACA was effectuated by the previous administration through executive action, without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date, after Congress' repeated rejection of proposed legislation that would have accomplished a similar result. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” . . .

Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/...escission-daca