By Brent Kendall and Louise Radnofsky
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether the Trump administration acted lawfully when it canceled a program that provided legal protections and work permits to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, adding a blockbuster case likely to be decided in the middle of next year’s presidential-election season.
The case, involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, is a high-stakes affair for President Trump’s immigration agenda and for hundreds of thousands of program beneficiaries, popularly known as Dreamers. It comes at a time when the country is deeply polarized on immigration politics, which promises to be a major campaign issue again in 2020 elections.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s announcement means it will consider the case during its next term, which begins in October, with a decision likely in the spring or summer of 2020. The case was one of 11 new matters the court added to its docket a day after issuing its last rulings before a three-month summer break.
Among the other cases, the court agreed to review the conviction of an aide to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the scandal known as Bridgegate. It also will review a Montana case that examines whether religious schools can be eligible for government student-aid programs.
Mr. Trump’s 2017 decision to cancel the DACA program remains one of the most visible actions of his presidency. The DACA wind-down was supposed to begin in March 2018, but lower courts have prevented the administration from rescinding the program, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The program, initiated by President Obama in 2012, provided protection from deportation and work authorization for individuals who arrived in the U.S. under the age of 16 and met a variety of other conditions, including being a student or graduate and having no significant criminal record. Nearly 700,000 people currently benefit from DACA and can seek renewals of their status every two years.
Mr. Trump and administration officials have said DACA isn’t lawful because Congress hasn’t authorized any such policy.
Mr. Trump and other Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing sympathy for the young immigrants in the program, who enjoy broad public support, according to polls. But efforts to resolve their fate through legislation have become mired in other immigration issues, such as Mr. Trump’s insistence that relief for Dreamers be paired with funding for a barrier along the southern border.
Last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) allowed votes on four different immigration plans, including ones that would have created a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. Those measures, which included one based on a proposal put forward by Mr. Trump, were all defeated. Lawmakers then threw in the towel on reaching a deal, pointing to the legal fight playing out in the courts.
Supreme Court arguments over DACA could reignite the debate in Congress and make it a central issue on the presidential-campaign trail. Democratic candidates support protecting Dreamers but also back immigration policies that Mr. Trump opposes, including extending health benefits to undocumented immigrants and limiting deportations.
The Trump appeal had sat in an unusual Supreme Court limbo for the past six months, as the justices repeatedly put off any action—a signal they weren’t eager to take the case. The delay also has meant DACA recipients have continued to receive benefits and likely will continue to do so for much of the next year.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court agreed that this issue needs resolution,” a Justice Department spokesman said.
The administration isn’t accepting new DACA applications, but because of the court rulings, it continues to process renewals from immigrants already in the program.
An array of plaintiffs sued the Trump administration to challenge the DACA cancellation, including several states and municipalities, the University of California system, Princeton University, Microsoft Corp. , civil-rights groups and individual DACA recipients.
FWD.us, a tech-funded immigrant-advocacy group that champions the cause of the young immigrants, described the Supreme Court’s action as a blow that would leave DACA beneficiaries “in a state of chaos and confusion.”
“President Trump has ensured a central face of his immigration policy and presidency leading into 2020 is an effort to end DACA, and ultimately force 700,000 Dreamers out of their jobs and the only country most know as home,” said Todd Schulte, the group’s president.
Several judges have ruled the DACA cancellation was unlawful, on the grounds that the Trump administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. New administrations can replace the policies of their predecessors, but government agencies must explain their reasons for doing so and offer a sound rationale for changing course, lower courts ruled.
Those courts said the Trump administration failed that test because it offered little reasoning on why it was changing direction and gave only a cursory explanation on why it believed DACA was unlawful.
Trump officials, led by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said the DACA cancellation was proper in light of an appeals court ruling against a different but related Obama administration program, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, that would have protected millions of additional illegal immigrants from deportation. The Supreme Court split 4-4 on that program in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a deadlock that effectively killed that Obama initiative.
In the Bridgegate case, the court will consider an appeal by former Christie aide Bridget Kelly, who was convicted of public-corruption offenses in 2016. She was found to have participated in a 2013 scheme to create traffic jams in Fort Lee, N.J., by limiting motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge that crosses into New York City—in retaliation against the Democratic mayor for not supporting the re-election bid of Mr. Christie, a Republican.
Ms. Kelly argues she was wrongly convicted of criminal fraud for routine, politically motivated actions.
In the student-aid case, three low-income families are seeking to participate in a Montana tax-credit scholarship program and use the funds toward tuition at a Christian school. The state Supreme Court said no state aid could go toward sectarian education.
For more information, go to: http://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment