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:

Immigration

In Latest Crackdown, Asylum Seekers to Face New Hurdles to Get US Work Permits
Immigration
In Latest Crackdown, Asylum Seekers to Face New Hurdles to Get US Work Permits

MIAMI — Over the past 20 years, asylum seekers in the United States have benefited broadly from a regulatory provision in immigration law that allowed them to receive an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) within a 30-day deadline after their initial application, regardless of whether their asylum... Read More

Supreme Court Okays Fast-Track Removal of Asylum Seekers
Immigration
Supreme Court Okays Fast-Track Removal of Asylum Seekers
June 25, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory to the Trump administration on Thursday, ruling that asylum seekers have no right to a federal court hearing before being removed from the United States. The 7-2 decision reverses an earlier ruling by the 9th U.S.... Read More

Senate Democrats Want a Vote on Permanent Citizenship Solution for Dreamers
Immigration
Senate Democrats Want a Vote on Permanent Citizenship Solution for Dreamers
June 25, 2020
by Sara Wilkerson

WASHINGTON - The Senate Democratic caucus has sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, urging him to bring the bipartisan American Dream and Promise Act, which grants citizenship to so-called dreamers and certain other classes of immigrants, to the Senate floor for a vote. The... Read More

Appeals Court Allows Trump’s Expansion of Fast-Track Deportation
Immigration
Appeals Court Allows Trump’s Expansion of Fast-Track Deportation

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in Washington sided with the way the Trump administration expanded its fast-track deportation process last year to a broader swath of immigrants who enter the country illegally, including those found anywhere in the U.S. within two years of crossing the... Read More

Trump Administration Extends Visa Ban to Non-Immigrants
Immigration
Trump Administration Extends Visa Ban to Non-Immigrants

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday extended a ban on green cards issued outside the United States until the end of the year and added many temporary work visas to the freeze, including those used heavily by technology companies and multinational corporations. The administration... Read More

Citizenship By Drive-Thru? Immigrants Now Take Oath Without Leaving Car
Immigration
Citizenship By Drive-Thru? Immigrants Now Take Oath Without Leaving Car

DETROIT — After years waiting to become American citizens, dozens of immigrants saw their dreams realized Wednesday — though the big moment wasn’t exactly what they had envisioned. They took their oaths in a drive-thru. Without ever leaving their cars, they raised their right hands and... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top