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.
Court decision: As the Supreme Court set its calendar for the first six months of the year, the justices declined to look at DACA and the military transgender ban
Clash: Trump wanted to abolish the program put in place by Obama but it prompted a huge backlash from this affected and from Democrats
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.
Trump's 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.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF DACA?
In September, President Donald Trump said he was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program but gave Congress six months to develop a legislative fix.
The program - created in 2012 by then-President Barack Obama - gave hundreds of thousands of people who came to the country illegally as children two-year, renewable permits to live and work. To qualify, they needed to have arrived before their 16th birthday, been under 31 in June 2012, completed high school or served in the military, and have clean criminal records.
Nearly 683,000 people were enrolled at the end of January, eight out of 10 from Mexico.
The program was scheduled to end on Monday, but a nationwide injunction set by U.S. District Judge William Alsup in January required the administration to resume renewals. However, that ruling does not apply to first-time applicants.
Loyola Marymount University student and a DACA recipient Maria Carolina Gomez joins a rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program, outside the Edward Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles
WHERE DO THE COURTS STAND ON DACA?
U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled on January 9 that the administration failed to justify ending the program and that the plaintiffs - the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota as well as the University of California - had a good chance of winning at trial. His nationwide injunction required the administration to resume accepting renewal requests within a week.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis in New York later issued a similar ruling.
On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration's unusual request to intervene, which would have leapfrogged the appeals court.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put its review of Alsup's decision on fast track, but legal experts don't expect a decision until June at the earliest. From there, it is expected to go to the Supreme Court, likely keeping DACA alive through November midterm elections.
WHAT HAPPENS IF DACA ENDS?
Courts have removed much of the urgency, but DACA recipients whose applications are pending are at risk until their petitions are granted.
Former Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, now Trump's chief of staff, last year scrapped the Obama administration's policy of limiting deportations to people who pose a public safety threat, convicted criminals and those who have crossed the border recently, effectively making anyone in the country illegally vulnerable. Deportation arrests have surged more than 40 percent under Trump.
There were nearly 14,000 people with expired permits who applied for renewals but hadn't received them at the end of January. There were also nearly 22,000 whose initial applications had yet to be decided.
Demonstrators hold up their fists as they are arrested outside of the U.S. Capitol during an immigration rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs, on Capitol Hill in Washington
WHERE DOES CONGRESS STAND ON DACA?
In January, the president proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants as part of an immigration package that included $25 billion for a wall and other border enforcement measures and sharp cuts to legal immigration.
The Senate rejected it.
Immigrant advocates and their allies in Congress want a narrower bill that would protect DACA recipients, possibly combined with limited border enforcement measures, but the administration has balked. Trump has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the impasse, while Democrats say he created it by ending DACA.
Congress must pass a spending bill by March 23 to keep the government running, giving Democrats a chance to condition support on a DACA bill. Democrats forced a partial shutdown in January with that goal in mind but relented after three days.
(Source: Associated Press)
https://hienalouca.com/2019/01/19/supreme-court-leaves-daca-in-place-for-at-least-another-year/
Main photo article 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...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves US News HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/01/18/23/8712796-6608793-image-a-8_1547852658803.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий