A federal judge appointed by George W. Bush on Tuesday ruled that President Trump's decision to cancel Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) was "unlawful and must be shelved."
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates of Washington was the third judge to oppose White House plans to end the program
Judges William Alsup and Nicholas Garaufis, both appointed by Clinton, issued interim injunctions earlier this year that prevented the end of the administration The DACA justified this by saying that the Obama program was an illegal executive violation.
Bates's decision does not mean that the Trump government does not have the authority to overturn the DACA. Rather, it is considered that the reasoning of the administration for the termination of the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that "the courts". , , unlawful and lessen agency action. , , noticed, that . , , arbitrary, capricious, a misuse of powers or otherwise not in accordance with the law. "
In his ruling, Bates noted a" non-trivial "possibility that the administration would be able to resolve its concerns through an alternative rationale.
" Although the substantive flaws in the repeal of the DACA in theory "Bates wrote." Nevertheless, a "non-trivial probability" remains that the agency could justify DACA's resignation order. "
" [T] remains here's a "non-trivial" likelihood that the agency might justify the DACA's repatriation. "
But Bates's 60-page verdict was initially bad news for The White House requires immigration officers to "accept and process DACA applications and renew DACA applications" if the administration does not better explain "their view that DACA is unlawful"
DACA allowed immigrants who were illegally brought to the US as children, known as Dreamers, to stay legally and work. President Trump announced last year that he would end the program begun by President Obama.
It was officially repealed in March, but the DHS continues to innovate under previous court orders.
Bates's basic idea – Trump's decision to terminate the DACA is inadmissible "arbitrary and capricious" and contains even a minimal coherent legal justification – reflects the ruling of Alsup and Garaufis.
The White House's decision was based primarily on his legal judgment, [DACA] being unlawful, Wrote Bates. "However, this verdict was virtually unexplained and therefore can not support the Authority's decision."
"ANGEL MOM": DACA PROGRAM IS WOMAN OF FRAUD
But in contrast to Bates, Garaufis and Alsup Englisch: www.germnews.com/archive/eng/news_2006.html. The Trump administration has also revived the processing of new DACA applicants as it can not have the same potential for harm as existing beneficiaries.
The court "can not claim that the plaintiffs have either proved that these persons are irreparably damaged without ceasefire or that the balance of the shares favors those persons to the extent that it favors existing DACA beneficiaries," Garaufis wrote in February.
Bates' decision will continue the process until July 27, when both parties must file a joint report "indicating whether the DHS has issued a new decision to lift the DACA and whether the parties are considering the need for further proceedings in this case. "
In a Tweet That Turns On When he decided, the ACLU called the decision "a big blow to the Trump government's bottom line".
The Civil Rights Group added, "DACA is constitutional, act on it."