The
Supreme Court Keeps Dreams Alive
By
Chloe Tomlinson, Esq.
I.
Introduction
On Thursday June 18, 2020 the Supreme Court blocked the
Trump administration’s attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA). This decision addressed whether the Trump administration followed
proper procedures in its’ decision to end DACA. In the Court’s Majority 5-4
decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court found that the Trump
administration’s decision to end the program was arbitrary and capricious. The
Court ruled that the administration acted improperly in terminating the
program. This decision provides temporary relief to over 650,000 DACA
recipients.
II.
What is DACA, and who are The Recipients?
“Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember,
you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for
the stars to change the world.” Harriet Tubman. The DACA recipients, also
known as Dreamers, consist of over 650,0000 recipients, who are positively
changing our country. They are medical professionals, teachers, activists,
students, and parents to name a few.
The DACA program was implemented on June 15, 2012 by the
Obama administration. It was implemented through a memorandum entitled
“Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to
the United States as Children,” which established the program known as Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”).
The 2012 memorandum stated that,
“[T]o prevent [these] low priority
individuals from being removed from the United States,” the DACA Memorandum
instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “exercise prosecutorial
discretion on an individual basis . . . by deferring action for a period of two
years, subject to renewal.”
This program protects undocumented immigrants who were
brought to the United States as children but does not provide a path for legal
citizenship. The program created a two-year grant of deportation relief and
work authorization to eligible young unauthorized immigrants. DACA recipients may request work
authorization and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare.
The requirements for DACA included:
· being
at least 15 years old;
· having
entered the United States before the age of 16;
· having
continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007;
· being
enrolled in school, having earned a high school diploma or its equivalent, or
being an honorably discharged veteran; and
· having
not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more
misdemeanors; or otherwise posing a threat to public safety or national
security.
Over 1.3 million people met
the above-mentioned criteria to apply under the DACA program. As of September
30, 2019, approximately 652,880 individuals had active DACA status, according
to USCIS. Americans have been largely in favor of this policy. A Pew Research
survey conducted in June 2020 found 74 percent of Americans favored granting
permanent legal status to immigrants who came illegally to the United States
when they were children, while 24 percent opposed.
III.
The Supreme Court Decision blocked the Trump Administration’s
attempt to end (DACA).
In 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would
end the program, which it believed had been illegal in the first place. On
September 4, 2017, the Attorney General sent a letter to the Department stating
that 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.
Therefore, on September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary Elaina Duke rescinded the
June 15, 2012 memorandum. She stated that due to the complexities associated
with this winding down program, there will be a window where certain DACA
requests and applications may be adjudicated.
In June 2019 the Supreme Court agreed to hear all three
cases regarding DACA, in which the lower courts agreed with the challengers.
The challengers argued that the decision to rescind DACA violated the rights of
DACA recipients and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The APA requires
there to be an articulated, legitimate justification for an administrative
action.
The issue decided by the Court was not whether DHS could
rescind DACA, but rather, whether the agency followed proper procedures in
deciding to end DACA. Justice Roberts focused on the Elaina Duke memorandum, in
which, the former Acting Secretary stated that DACA was illegal and should be
terminated because it made DACA recipients eligible for benefits such as Social
Security, Medicare and the ability to work legally in the United States.
In addressing whether the Agency complied with the procedural
requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action, the Court
found it had not. Justice Roberts stated that,
“In short, the Attorney General neither addressed the forbearance policy
at the heart of DACA nor compelled DHS to abandon that policy. Thus, removing
benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance remained squarely within the
discretion of Acting Secretary Duke, who was responsible for “[e]stablishing
national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.” 116 Stat. 2178, 6 U.
S. C. §202(5). But Duke’s memo offers no reason for terminating forbearance.
She instead treated the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding the illegality
of benefits as sufficient to rescind both benefits and forbearance, without
explanation.”
The Department failed to provide adequate reasons for
ending the program. The decision did not focus on whether the terminating DACA
was legal, but rather how the agency failed to comply with the procedural
requirement, that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Justice
Roberts said,
“Here the agency failed to consider the
conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do
about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about
whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that
discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to
remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
The three-circuit split in regard to DACA was ruled in
favor of DACA recipients, and against the Trump administration. This decision
provides temporary relief to the DACA recipients and allows them to continue to
be protected from deportation. However, the Administration can attempt to
provide a new justification for terminating the program.
IV.
What Did the President Have to Say?
In response to this ruling,
Trump tweeted,
“These
horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court
are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves
Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices, or we will lose our 2nd.
Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!”
While President Trump
advocated for additional Justices in light of this monumental decision, former
President Obama tweeted his enthusiasm. This program was implemented in 2012,
under the Obama administration. Former President Obama tweeted,
“Eight years ago, this week, we protected young people who
were raised as part of our American family from deportation.” “Today, I’m happy
for them, their families, and all of us.”
V.
Conclusion and What is Next?
This decision is monumental for DACA recipients. While
the Court emphasized that this decision was based on procedural grounds, not
the legality of DACA, the ruling allows temporary reliefs for hundreds of
thousands of DACA recipients. It also sends the message that in this
unprecedented time of chaos in our country, there remains some hope for our
immigrant community.
