Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌Set‌ ‌to‌ ‌Tackle‌ ‌DACA,‌ ‌LGBT‌ ‌Discrimination,‌ ‌Among‌ ‌Other‌ ‌Issues‌ ‌This‌ Term‌
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS

October 1, 2019 by Dan McCue
On March 5, 2018, hundreds of DREAMers and their allies, march through the streets of Washington, D.C., protesting the abasence of a legislative fix for DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which would offer young immigrants a pathway to citizenship. (Michael Nigro/Sipa USA/TNS)

This year’s term begins Monday, Oct. 7, and will extend into late June, encompassing the presidential primaries and ending just before the Republicans and Democrats host their presidential nominating conventions.

As always, one can expect the Justices’ statements from the bench during hearings, the court’s rulings, and the makeup of the majorities in those rulings, to invite intense scrutiny.

Among the high-profile issues they’ll tackle early in the term are the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and whether Title VII employment discrimination protections extend to members of the LGBT community.


You can read previews of the other cases here:


DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS

The Justices will decide whether Congress needs to cough up $12 billion promised to insurers before the Affordable Care Act was signed by President Barack Obama in March 2010.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is the 2012, Obama-era policy that protected hundreds of thousands of people from deportation who were illegally brought into the United States as children and met certain other requirements.

Roughly 700,000 people, known as Dreamers, ultimately qualified for protection under the program.

But then, in September 2017, President Donald Trump abruptly terminated the program.

In November, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on three consolidated cases: Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security; Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen; and NAACP v. Trump.

Shoba Wadhia, who will be among the immigration law scholars filing an amicus brief in the court ahead of the hearing, said all three cases argue that Trump’s ending DACA was a violation of administrative law.

Wadhia argued the legal foundation for “deferred action,” something she also referred to as “prosecutorial discretion” is crystal clear when it comes to immigration law. At the same time, she appeared genuinely insulted by how the decision to end DACA was announced.

“It was done through a press release, and in it, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions called DACA recipients ‘illegal aliens,'” she said. “And he went on to call the Obama-era policy an ‘unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.'”

Despite her strong belief that DACA is firmly grounded in law, Wadhia said its fate before the Supreme Court is uncertain, and may hinge on whether the court believes the case is reviewable at all.

If the Justices determine the parties have standing, the government is expected to offer three arguments for doing away with the program.

The first is that the outcome of separate litigation over the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) provides a basis for finding DACA unlawful.

DAPA was planned policy to grant deferred action status to certain illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. Several states sued to block it, and after the Supreme Court deadlocked on whether an injunction in the case should be lifted, President Trump ordered the program ended.

Wadhia quoted acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who happened to be sitting to her right, who argued the DAPA case and later said of the court’s one-sentence order, “seldom have so many hopes been crushed by so few words.”

The Trump administration is also expected to argue that DACA creates an incentive for non-citizens to migrate to the United States southern border, and that the Department of Homeland Security was correct in concluding the program was illegal.

Wadhia says all three arguments are deeply flawed.

“I represent these clients, people arriving at the southern border are doing so in large part because of their dangerous conditions back home. They’re not here because they heard of DACA.

“Finally, I believe the government provides a flawed analysis for why DACA is unlawful. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in this case, as a matter of law, the choice by the Trump administration to end DACA represents an extraordinary use of discretion,” she said.

That prompted a comment from Dellinger.

“There are different ways of losing the case and they have different consequences,” he said. “The court could hold that it was within President Obama’s authority to create DACA, and that President Trump was similarly within his statutory authority to reverse it.

“A ruling like that would leave the way free for a future president to return to the position taken by President Obama,” he said.

“The other way to lose the case, and potentially far more damaging to DACA supporters, would be for the court to say Trump was right to rescind the Obama-era order,” Dellinger said.

“That would mean that no future president, without additional legislation and a granting of additional statutory authority, could return to that,” he said. “Now it may well be that both the court and the administration are reluctant to go that far because what you’re ultimately talking about is placing constraints on a future president.”

“Everything about the Affordable Care Act was outsized and big,” said Paul Clement, providing the context for the three lawsuits the justices have consolidated for oral argument.

The cases are Maine Community Health Options v. United States; Moda Health Plan v. United States; and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. United States.

“It was a big piece of legislation. It had huge consequences for the healthcare industry,” he said.

To encourage insurers to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, a provision was included in the ACA that said if insurers lost money on these policies, the federal government would reimburse them for some of the loss.

A parallel provision said that if an insurance company priced their policies too high and made more money than expected, they would return some money to the federal government.

“It was a way of cushioning the risk,” Clement said of the provisions.

However, by the time losses were realized and the reimbursements came due, Congress had changed hands, and the new Republican majority restricted the funds available to the Department of Health and Human Services to pay the insurers. The insurers promptly sued.

Don Verrilli, another of the former solicitors general on the panel, said the cases are interesting because they deal with the issue of how promises made by one Congress are handled by another.

“Anytime a big law like this gets enacted, you learn things as you start implementing it,” Verrilli said. “You start to say, ‘We need to tinker with this.’ “We need to fix that.’ But once you had a change in the party in control of the House, that just wasn’t going to happen … and a whole host of issues ended up in court.”

“There are some questions of law that you’d think would be settled 225 years into our constitutional experiment,” Clement said. “You’d think we’d already know the answer to what happens when Congress says,’Yes, we’ll make some payments, but they’re not due for five years.’ And then Congress, five years later, says, “Well, that’s interesting, but we’re not going to appropriate the funds’. You just think there was a crystal clear answer to that question that was provided … in something Andrew Jackson did or something. Instead, it remains a debatable question.”


You can read previews of the other cases here:

In The News

Health

Voting

Immigration

Biden and Congressional Democrats to Unveil Immigration Bill
Immigration
Biden and Congressional Democrats to Unveil Immigration Bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden's administration is joining Democrats on Capitol Hill to unveil a major immigration overhaul that would offer an eight-year pathway to citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal status.The legislation, to be released in detail... Read More

White House Urges Asylum-Seekers to Be Patient As Start of Processing Begins
Immigration
White House Urges Asylum-Seekers to Be Patient As Start of Processing Begins
February 16, 2021
by TWN Staff

WASHINGTON - The White House urged asylum-seekers to be patient and to abide by proper procedures as the United States readies itself to begin processing their claims on Friday. In a joint statement released Tuesday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall,... Read More

Some Asylum-Seekers Waiting in Mexico to Be Allowed in US
Immigration
Some Asylum-Seekers Waiting in Mexico to Be Allowed in US

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed.The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with... Read More

Biden Signs Immigration Orders as Congress Awaits More
Immigration
Biden Signs Immigration Orders as Congress Awaits More

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden signed a second spate of orders to undo his predecessor’s immigration policies, demonstrating the powers of the White House and its limitations without support from Congress. His orders on family separation, border security and legal immigration bring to nine the... Read More

Biden Expands Quick Bid to Undo Trump’s Immigration Policies
Immigration
Biden Expands Quick Bid to Undo Trump’s Immigration Policies

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Tuesday announced steps to address harm to thousands of families that were separated at the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding efforts to quickly undo relentless changes to immigration policy over the last four years. President Joe Biden planned to sign... Read More

Trump-Appointed Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Biden Deportation Plan
Immigration
Trump-Appointed Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Biden Deportation Plan
January 29, 2021
by Dan McCue

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked a Biden administration plan to impose a 100-day moratorium on deportations. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, granted a temporary restraining order sought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The court order will... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top