Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Third Judge Rules Against Move to End DACA

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835

    Third Judge Rules Against Move to End DACA

    Third judge rules against Trump move to end DACA



    April 24, 2018

    Josh Gerstein


    The judge said that if DHS doesn’t come up with a new, better explanation for the rescission within 90 days, the entire DACA program would be restored. | AP Photo





    A third federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s justification for winding down the program protecting immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.



    U.S. District Court Judge John Bates said on Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security’s legal explanation for the decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, was too flimsy and, ultimately, unpersuasive.



    “DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful,” Bates wrote in his 60-page opinion, released on Tuesday evening. “Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.”



    Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, is the first Republican appointee to rule against President Donald Trump’s move to wind down DACA. Two district court judges appointed by President Bill Clinton — one in San Francisco and one in Brooklyn — previously came to similar conclusions. They also entered injunctions requiring the administration to continue accepting renewals while litigation continued.



    One judge in Maryland, also a George W. Bush appointee, upheld the basic thrust of the administration’s decision to end the program.
    The Trump administration tried to bypass the usual appeals process and take one of those district court rulings directly to the Supreme Court, but in February the justices declined to take up the case before a ruling from at least one appeals court.



    Trump announced in September that he planned to phase out the program, allowing renewals through March 5 of this year but then refusing to issue new permits. The arrangement would have resulted in about 700,000 people having their work permits and quasi-legal status expire over a two-year period.



    The administration said the move was necessary to head off a lawsuit threatened by conservative state attorneys general who managed to block an expansion of the program under President Barack Obama. Bates, however, made clear on Tuesday that he did not find that to be a credible reason for the wind-down of DACA.



    “The agency’s prediction regarding the outcome of threatened litigation over DACA’s viability — specifically, that the district court in the Texas litigation would immediately halt the program without any opportunity for a wind-down — was so implausible that it fails even under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard,” Bates wrote. “DACA’s rescission will therefore be set aside.”



    Bates is also opening up the possibility that the Trump administration could be ordered to take new DACA applications, something no other judge has required. Bates said in his decision on Tuesday that if DHS didn’t come up with a new, better explanation for the rescission within 90 days, the entire program would be restored.



    A Justice Department spokesman, Devin O’Malley, said the administration remained convinced that its actions were lawful.



    “Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress,” O'Malley said. “The Department of Homeland Security therefore acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner. … The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”



    Bates’ new ruling came on a pair of suits: one brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Federation of Teachers and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and another brought by Princeton University, Microsoft and a DACA recipient.




    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...mp-daca-550092


    Last edited by GeorgiaPeach; 04-24-2018 at 11:36 PM.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  2. #2
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835
    Another federal judge rules against Trump move to end DACA



    April 24, 2018

    Carolyn McAtee Cerbin




    A third federal judge Tuesday rejected the Trump administration's reasoning for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.


    In a scathing 60-page ruling, Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbiawrote that administration moves to cancel DACA were "arbitrary" and "capricious" because DHS "failed adequately to explain its conclusion the program was unlawful."


    The court gave the Trump administration 90 days to challenge the ruling before reinstating DACA in its entirety.

    Bates joined judges in Brooklyn and San Francisco in ruling against the Trump administration.

    The U.S. Supreme Court announced in February that it wouldn't immediately take up President Trump's appeal of a lower-court opinion keeping the DACA programs in place.

    The dispute dates back to 2012, when then-president Barack Obama established the program without congressional action. The goal was to protect from deportation undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children, but many Republicans called it executive overreach and have remained opposed to the program.

    Trump vowed to end the program on the campaign trail, but seemed to change his mind after winning election. He went back and forth over the future of DACA during his first months in office but made his decision in September: He announced that the program would end, but not until March 5, giving Congress six months to find a solution.

    Democrats and Republicans have continued to squabble over the fate of those so-called DREAMers and failed to find a solution by Trump's stated March 5 deadline.

    Democrats want the program left alone or made permanent through a new law; Republicans, with Trump's backing, have demanded other immigration enforcement and border security enhancements in exchange, including an expansion of the wall along the Mexican border.

    The negotiations led to a three-day government shutdown in January as Democrats briefly demanded a DACA solution as part of a spending bill.

    Once the Supreme Court decided not to fast-track the legal battle, the program continued to allow DACA recipients to renew their protections.

    The justices could have agreed to hear the case this spring, leapfrogging a federal appeals court based in California that has been sympathetic to the cause of immigrants. They also could have overruled federal District Judge William Alsup without a hearing.

    Instead, they simply allowed the case to run its normal course through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

    "It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case," the justices said in denying the Trump administration's petition. The case still could come to the high court in the future.

    In his January ruling, Alsup granted a request by California, the University of California system, and several California cities to block Trump's decision to end the DACA program while their lawsuit challenging the program's termination plays out in court. He said those already approved for protection and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire.

    Alsup said the challengers were likely to succeed by claiming that the Trump administration's decision to end the program was "arbitrary and capricious" and based on a flawed legal premise. He said the plaintiffs would be harmed, in part through economic disruptions and the loss of tax revenue caused by the DREAMers' change in status.

    In March, federal District Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued a similar ruling in New York. He said the administration was wrong for several reasons, such as its premise that Obama's creation of the program was unconstitutional and illegal in the first place.
    "Any of these flaws would support invalidating the DACA rescission as arbitrary and capricious," Garaufis ruled.


    Contributing: Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez



    http://www.kcentv.com/article/news/n...6-bb04e70deed2




    Last edited by GeorgiaPeach; 04-24-2018 at 11:43 PM.
    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  3. #3
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    • U.S. Must Resume DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules


    By MIRIAM JORDANAPRIL 24, 2018


    Supporters of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program demonstrating outside the Capitol last month.

    In the biggest setback yet for the Trump administration in its attempt to end a program that protects some undocumented young adults from deportation, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the protections must stay in place and that the government must resume accepting new applications.

    Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the administration’s decision to terminate the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was based on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the program was “unlawful.”
    The judge stayed his decision for 90 days and gave the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for canceling the program. If the department fails to do so, it “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” Judge Bates wrote in his decision.

    The ruling was the third in recent months against the Trump administration’s rollback of DACA. Federal judges in Brooklyn and in San Francisco each issued injunctions ordering that the program remain in place. Neither of those decisions, however, required the government to accept new applications. The administration has not sought stays of those injunctions.

    Judge Bates, who issued the ruling on Tuesday, was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2001. He described the Trump administration’s decision to phase out DACA as “arbitrary and capricious because the department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

    The Supreme Court in late February declined an unusual White House request that it immediately decide whether the Trump administration can shut down the program.
    The Obama administration established the DACA program based on the premise that children brought to the United States as children should be treated as low priorities for deportation. About 700,000 undocumented immigrants, the majority of them brought to the United States as children, had signed up. The program gives young immigrants, who are known as Dreamers and must renew their DACA status every two years, the ability to work legally in the country.

    The Trump administration officially rescinded DACA in March but the program has allowed the Dreamers to renew applications after previous court orders.
    In a statement, the Department of Justice said that it “will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”

    The department, “acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner. Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens.”
    Immigration advocates hailed Judge Bate’s ruling, saying it highlighted the failure of the administration to justify terminating the program.

    “Either President Trump finds another way to end the program, tossing hundreds of thousands of young people into deportation proceedings,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington, “or he works with Republicans and Democrats to find a legislative solution.”

    In trying to close the program, the Trump administration argued that Mr. Obama had abused his authority and circumvented Congress to create DACA. President Trump urged Congress to find a legislative remedy to replace it and expressed support for giving the Dreamers a path to citizenship.

    Despite broad bipartisan support for the beneficiaries of the program, Congress failed to agree on a solution. Mr. Trump recently has wavered in his support of the young immigrants, at times even saying he would not agree to any deal to back them, as he called for a tough crackdown on illegal immigration and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.

    In January, Judge William Alsup of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ordered that previous beneficiaries of the program must be allowed to renew their status. That lawsuit was filed by the University of California, which is led by Janet Napolitano, who was the secretary of homeland security when the program began.

    The next month, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn decided in favor of attorneys general from 15 states and several advocacy groups that sued Homeland Security, issuing an injunction that blocked the DACA rollback.

    Unless the administration can justify its decision within 90 days, the cancellation of the program will be vacated. The government is expected to appeal the decision.

    The latest lawsuit was brought by the N.A.A.C.P. and Princeton University.
    “Princeton higher education and our country benefit from the talent and aspirations that Dreamers bring to our communities,” Christopher L. Eisgruber, the university president, said in a statement. “We continue to urge Congress to enact a permanent solution.”

    Hasan Shafiqullah, director of the immigration law unit of the Legal Aid Society of New York, said this ruling ushered in new hope, especially for younger siblings of DACA recipients who, as of September 2017 were ineligible to apply. In three months’ time, they might be able to submit a new application, Mr. Shafiqullah said.

    “We are cautiously optimistic that the administration will fail, in the next 90 days, to convince the court that its heartless and unwarranted rescission was justifiable, and that these youngsters will at last be able to come out of the shadows, register for DACA, and — like their older siblings — more fully integrate into the fabric of our society,” Mr. Shafiqullah said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/u...T.nav=top-news
    Last edited by artist; 04-24-2018 at 11:51 PM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279
    "Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of thelaw if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns thelawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion."

    How is canceling a program an "enforcement?" Seems like a leap. However, there probably should have been some period of notice and comment.
    Last edited by Captainron; 04-25-2018 at 12:09 AM.
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Super Moderator GeorgiaPeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,835
    Mark Krikorian



    @MarkSKrikorian


    A new administration doesn't need to give a judge an explanation for reversing a memo (DACA was just a memo, with no basis in law) issued by the prior administration. Our courts are proceeding down a road that ends in tyranny.

    __________
    Josh Gerstein



    @joshgerstein


    A GWBush-appointed judge has joined 2 Clinton appointees in ruling against Trump's wind-down of DACA. Says administration's explanation is not plausible. He also raises possibility of reopening enrollment window (link: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...mp-daca-550092) politico.com/story/2018/04/…


    Matthew 19:26
    But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
    ____________________

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)


  7. #7
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member dman1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,631
    I love that BS argument Republicans always put up about how we need to elect a Republican president so we can get more conservatives selected to the judiciary branch. You mean CONservatives like the neocon RINO globalist type? You mean like this idiot W Bush put in there or his other gems like Roberts? I love how Republican voters always assume some liberal RINO is going to appoint a conservative to the bench. Seems like wishful thinking to me.

Similar Threads

  1. Federal judge rules that Trump can end DACA
    By lorrie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-2018, 01:43 PM
  2. Second federal judge blocks move to end DACA
    By GeorgiaPeach in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-13-2018, 11:47 PM
  3. U.S. judge blocks Trump move to end DACA program for immigrants
    By Judy in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-11-2018, 05:59 PM
  4. Judge Rules DACA Recipients Have Due Process Rights
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-09-2017, 02:30 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 06:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •