Wall Street Journal
By Brent Kendall
May 15, 2018
A federal appeals court on Tuesday questioned the Trump administration’s rationale for canceling an Obama-era initiative that offered deportation protections and work permits to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.
During a roughly 75-minute oral argument in Pasadena, Calif., a three-judge panel on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the administration acted lawfully when it decided last September to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
About 800,000 people, referred to by supporters as Dreamers, have participated in DACA since the Obama administration implemented it in 2012, and roughly 690,000 are enrolled now. The program has been available to students and graduates who were brought to the U.S. under the age of 16, haven’t committed serious crimes and met certain other criteria.
In rescinding the program, the Department of Homeland Security cited the views of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said DACA was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Obama administration without authorization from Congress.
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw suggested Mr. Sessions’ conclusion was thin on legal analysis. “If that is wrong as a matter of law … can the decision to rescind stand?” the judge asked.
The Trump administration intended to end the program in March, but the cancellation attracted an array of lawsuits and lower courts have put the White House’s plans on hold. Trial judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C., have ruled the administration didn’t offer an adequate explanation for its decision.
The Justice Department is mounting multiple appeals, and Tuesday’s hearing was the first by a federal appeals court.
Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told the panel Tuesday that the administration’s decision on DACA fell within the lawful discretion accorded to agencies such as DHS. The Department of Homeland Security canceled the program in the face of significant concerns about its legality, he said.
“That is a perfectly rational thing to do,” Mr. Mooppan added.
The government attorney also argued the courts had no authority to review the Trump administration’s decision at all, and the judges spent a substantial portion of the session considering that issue.
The plaintiffs in Tuesday’s case included California and three other states, the University of California, the city of San Jose, and a group of DACA recipients.
Jeffrey Davidson, one of three lawyers who argued for the plaintiffs Tuesday, said the Trump administration’s decision to cancel DACA “reflects not one word of consideration about the welfare of the 700,000 DACA recipients, not one word of consideration about the welfare of their families.”
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen picked up on that issue and wondered whether and how the court should consider the interests of DACA participants who have relied on the program.
Judge John Owens suggested he believed the plaintiffs had a “strong” argument that the termination of DACA raised concerns about discrimination against Latinos, citing past comments by President Donald Trump. “He has said all kinds of things that could be relevant in this litigation,” the judge said.
All three judges in Tuesday’s hearing were appointed by Democratic presidents.
A decision is expected in the coming months. The losing side is almost sure to seek review by the Supreme Court.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment