Supreme Court unlikely to hear Trump DACA appeal

Supreme Court unlikely to hear Trump DACA appeal

If the justices don't take up the issue during its current term, the government will be required to keep the program going for at least nine more months.

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newsc...9.fit-760w.jpg

Activists rally for the passage of a "clean" Dream Act, one without additional security or enforcement measures, outside the New York office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on January 10, 2018.Drew Angerer / Getty Images file

Jan. 18, 2019, 1:06 PM PST
By Pete Williams

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court took no action on Friday on the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It now appears likely that the court will not take up the issue during its current term, which would require the government to keep the program going for at least ten more months.

The Trump administration urged the justices to hear appeals of lower court rulings that prevent the government from shutting DACA down, but Friday was the last day for adding cases to the current term's docket, barring unusual circumstances. Any cases accepted in subsequent weeks won't be heard until the next term, which begins October 1, and it would take a few months more for the court to issue a decision.

DACA allows children of illegal immigrants to remain here if they were under 16 when their parents brought them to the US, provided they arrived by 2007. The Obama-era initiative has allowed 700,000 young people, commonly referred to as "Dreamers," based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act, to avoid deportation.

https://media11.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNB...563;7;70;5.jpg



Supreme Court will not hear DACA case this term

JAN. 18, 201902
The Trump administration moved to end the program in late 2017, but federal courts in San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., blocked that attempt. Following a brief hiatus, the government began accepting renewal applications from DACA participants, which must be filed every two years.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that, far from being illegal, deferred action has been a feature of the immigration system for decades. "In a world where the government can remove only a small percentage of the undocumented non-citizens present in this country in any year, deferred action programs like DACA enable DHS to devote much-needed resources to enforcement priorities such as threats to national security, rather than blameless and economically productive young people with clean criminal records."

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn up those lower court judgments. The Department of Homeland Security and the attorney general concluded that it is unlawful, said Solicitor General Noel Francisco, finding that it "sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million people."

He said that by agreeing to hear the appeals, the court could "provide much-needed clarity to the government and DACA recipients alike." Francisco also said that as long as the question is pending in the courts, Congress has less incentive to come up with a permanent solution.

But supporters of the DACA program said nothing in the lower court rulings would prevent the government from undertaking deportation proceedings against any individual DACA recipient if the need arose. They also noted that President Trump himself has taken conflicting positions on the program, saying at one point, "I love the 'Dreamers.'"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...c-rss_20190118

Supreme Court Votes Friday on Whether to Fast-Track DACA Appeal

Pass the "Clean Deportation Act" and stop rewarding these criminal trespassing illegal aliens!

They need to go home and solve their countries problems. There are problems ALL over the world...do we take in 2 BILLION people! This is crushing us!

They are illegal whether they came here 30 years ago or 30 seconds ago. And NO bogus excuse if they go back they do not know the language or country. They did NOT know our language or country when they slithered across our border and many of them REFUSE to learn English!

They know the English words FREE, welfare, food stamps, anchor baby, asylum, poor me...that is for sure!

Supreme Court inaction suggests DACA safe for another year

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resiz...KZYZBQX5BA.jpg
FILE - In this Jan. 23, 2018, file photo, immigration advocates hold a rally on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation and that President Donald Trump has sought to end seems likely to survive for at least another year. That’s because the Supreme Court has so far taken no action on the Trump administration’s request to decide by early summer whether Trump’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was legal. (Andrew Harnik, File/Associated Press)

By Mark Sherman | AP
January 18 at 5:35 PM

WASHINGTON — The Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation and that President Donald Trump has sought to end seems likely to survive for at least another year.
That’s because the Supreme Court took no action Friday on the Trump administration’s request to decide by early summer whether Trump’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was legal. The program has been protected by several federal courts.

Based on the high court’s usual practices, the earliest the justices would hear arguments in the case would be this fall, if they decide to hear the case at all. If arguments take place in October, a decision would not be likely before 2020, when it could affect the presidential campaign.

The administration “never asked for a stay of the rulings below which to us indicated it has known all along that there’s no real rush to resolve these important issues,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer in Los Angeles who represents some young immigrants who challenged the administration’s plans.

Trump and Congress could take the issue out of the court’s hands altogether if they strike a deal on the program known as DACA, perhaps even in negotiations to end the partial government shutdown.

The immigration case is among several high-profile issues the court has apparently decided not to add to its calendar for decision by late June. Other pending appeals involve Indiana abortion restrictions, whether the main federal employment discrimination law protects LGBT people and Trump’s policy to limit military service by transgender people. The court also has yet to act on a separate administration request to let the transgender policy take effect, even before the case is decided.

On immigration, the administration sought to end DACA in 2017, but federal courts in California, New York and Washington, DC, have prevented it from doing so. A federal judge in Texas has declared the program is illegal, but refused to order it halted.

DACA has protected about 700,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families that overstayed visas.

The Obama administration created the DACA program in 2012 to provide work permits and protection from deportation to people who, in many cases, have no memory of any home other than the United States.

The Trump administration has said it moved to end the program under the threat of a lawsuit from Texas and other states, raising the prospect of a chaotic end.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined DACA to be unlawful because President Barack Obama did not have the authority to adopt it in the first place. Sessions cited a 2015 ruling by the federal appeals court in New Orleans that blocked a separate immigration policy implemented by Obama and the expansion of the DACA program.

Texas and other Republican-led states eventually did sue and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas. Civil rights groups, advocates for immigrants and Democratic-led states all have sued to prevent the end of the program.

In November, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the administration decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious.

The appeals court noted that the federal government has a long and well-established history of using its discretion not to enforce immigration law against certain categories of people.

While the federal government might be able to end DACA for policy reasons under its own discretion, it can’t do so based on Sessions’ faulty belief that the program exceeds federal authority, the court held.

The administration has twice tried to sidestep the appeals courts and win a swift ruling by the Supreme Court. The justices rejected a first attempt last year as premature. In taking no action so far on the second request, the high court is signaling that it considers the issue less urgent than the administration does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.6bd48349448f

Supreme Court drops 2020 census case

I STILL SAY THE SUPREME COURT ARE ON THE BOOK'S (ANOTHER WORD UNDER THE UNDER TABLE )

IT COULD BE THE COURT DID NOT GET PAY - THAT WHY THE DROPS THE CASE

Good point southBronx. I wonder if they're getting paid. If they're paid by USDOJ, USDOJ is shut down. No checks. Could be our Supremes are hurting financially and they're .... mad.

:)