قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Proponents of DACA address their appeal to Supreme Judge John Roberts in their own words

Proponents of DACA address their appeal to Supreme Judge John Roberts in their own words

They found ammunition in his own words from a Supreme Court ruling last June when he teamed up with the four liberals of the Court to pass the crucial vote against the Trump administration's plan to make the Census 2020 a citizenship issue add.

] The new challengers lift off a page from Roberts' decision and tear down the justification for the census question. They suggest that the government's reasons for repealing the Deferred Action Program on arrival of children are not "true" or "genuine". Instead, they argue that the reasons are "fake" and require that the judges "show naiveté" to buy what the administration sells.

Roberts has expressed interest in disregarding predictions of a partisan cleavage on a bank composed of five Republican-appointed Conservatives and four Liberal Democrats in an increasingly polarized America.

Proponents of the DACA must break this known ideological split if they want to receive at least one-fifth of the votes in this case. This would affect around 700,000 young immigrants trying to stay in the US.

It's a tough battle. Roberts sits at the head of a conservative court and his broader experience over the years suggests sympathy for the immigration efforts of the Trump administration. In 201

6, when the court heard a similar dispute over undocumented immigrants who were parents of US citizens, Roberts was shown to be skeptical of a plan by then-President Barack Obama to postpone deportation.

The new case stems from President Donald Trump's sweeping steps to curb immigration, from the planned wall on America's southern border, to tightening restrictions on asylum seekers to increase arrests and faster deportations.

The extreme political consequences of a DACA verdict add to the pressure on Roberts in view of his conflicts with Trump and the timing of a presidential election.

The Supreme Judge, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2005, has generally postponed the administrative initiatives and drafted the 2017 decision confirming the third version of the Trump travel ban, which follows the well-known rules of 5 bis 4 was decided.

In their defense, the Trump administration uses a language other than the census decision, which their attorneys believe to address the Supreme Court's inclination to default on the executive.

In the last session of the Supreme Court, in the months before he surprisingly opposed the citizenship issue at the 2020 Census, Roberts posted several tags to demonstrate the judges' independence from presidential politics.

The most notable event occurred after a lower California judge tentatively ruled against a Trump asylum policy and the president mocked him as an "Obama judge". Roberts issued a statement saying, "We have no Obama or Trump judges, no Bush or Clinton judges, we have an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who do their best to help those who perform before them to give the same right. " 19659002] Trump sent back on Twitter and said, "Excuse me, Chief Justice Roberts, but you really have Obama judges, and they have a very different point of view than the people who are responsible for the security of our country." In a subsequent tweet, Trump, who had sharply criticized Roberts in 2012 when he voted in favor of adherence to the Obama-sponsored Affordable Care Act, added to the immigration scene: "We need protection and security – these decisions make our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise ! "

Regardless of whether they can persuade Roberts to stand for election, lawyers defending the DACA do not exclude other opportunities under the judges, including Trump's recent appointment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

19659002] The case before the judges will not consider the constitutionality of the Obama program to protect undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children from deportation, but rather the way in which Trump government officials reduce these.

The key legal issue is whether the Department of Homeland Security meets the procedural requirements when it announced in 2017 that DACA would be closed. As the dispute focuses on the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits agencies from acting "arbitrary" or "capricious" when changing their policies, the new case directly raises the issues raised in the census on citizenship issues in the foreground. [19659002] Roberts wrote the statement rejecting the addition of the citizenship query. Opponents said they would reduce responses in minority communities that tend to vote democratically. Trade Minister Wilbur Ross said the issue was needed to help the Ministry of Justice enforce the 1965 Voting Right. Roberts came to the conclusion that Ross had invented the justification.

Those who question the Trump administration at DACA also say the administration is not easy. The consolidated cases were brought by California, New York and other democratically-led states along with the rulers of the University of California and immigrant rights groups.

Theodore Olson, a respected conservative lawyer representing young people who have benefited from the DACA program, acknowledges that the administration has the power to revoke the DACA, but says the move is based on a "reasoned decision" must be accompanied.

"DACA beneficiaries, their communities, and the public deserve a reasoned explanation for the government's decision, backed by a full administrative record," Olson wrote in a lawsuit. "You have not received one."

Olson also picked out one of the most memorable lines in Roberts' census report, claiming that the administration had acted as if the change in DHS policy would not harm or resonate with DACA workforce recipients nationwide: " This court is "not"

Attorney Robert Long, who took the lead for the Regents of the University of California, cited Roberts census as pointing to "disturbing signs that the government has given reasons for lifting the DACA not the true reasons for his decision. "

For example, he wrote:" When the Prosecutor General announced his resignation, he said that the DACA denied Americans jobs and contributed to crime, which was not included in the Duke memorandum. and there is no support for them in the administration In fact, the DACA participants must be a condition for it r that they have committed no serious crime.

Because US Attorney General Noel Francisco disagreed with these arguments in his records, he similarly selected lines from Robert's census from the Commerce Department's case against New York, saying that agency officials had a wide margin have to make political decisions as long as they have "examined the relevant data" and "established a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

"The decision of the DHS here passes this test slightly more Several legal and political reasons," Francisco wrote, adding in his final submission on October 28 that "there is no basis for believing that one of the secretaries

How the DACA decision came about

The resolution of the DACA was announced in September 2017. Elaine Duke, then acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, took her lead from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had stated that the DACA had been unlawfully established and is likely to do so by federal courts.

Duke noted that the lower courts had previously expressed doubts about the legality of a related program (Deferred lawsuit for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents) The implementation of DAPA was blocked, suggesting that Obama had exceeded his authority when he proposed to suspend the deportation of certain undocumented parents. However, the judges had not ruled on the constitutional merits of the Texas and other Republican-led states' challenge, and the Supreme Court judges had stalled when the dispute reached them.

When Kirstjen Nielsen took over as Minister of Homeland Security later that year, she reaffirmed the Duke's memo and said that she similarly lacked confidence in the legality of DACA's enforcement. She added other reasons, including the view that a major shift in deportation should be a matter for Congress rather than an authority.

When the Supreme Court reviewed the DAPA case in 2016, Roberts asked the Obama administration lawyer at the lectern with questions and explained the postponement policy as a "fairly significant departure" from previous practice by the executive. Roberts suggested that the justification put forward by the Obama administration would allow a president to postpone deportation to a wide range of undocumented immigrants.

At the time, two months after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, the court had only eight members. It ended with a 4: 4 deficit in the United States case against Texas. This meant that no national policy was set, but a preliminary ruling by the 5th US Court of Appeals that prevented the implementation of the DAPA program was upheld.

The Supreme Court continued to work with just eight judges for a year. When Trump took office, he appointed Neil Gorsuch as successor to Scalia in 2017 and Kavanaugh succeeding Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018 trumping administrative effort to disband DACA. Unlike the other colleagues, they were not heard in the 2016 DAPA case.

The Kavanaugh Pitch

Perhaps to seduce Kavanaugh, attorney Olson quotes a 2014 Kavanaugh statement from his term before an appeals court when Olson argues that the Department of Homeland Security has the potential cost of unbalanced resolution of the DACA.

The Kavanaugh statement, which deviates in an environmental case, rejected an approach he described as "cost-blind" for an air quality program.

Kavanaugh wrote that agencies should consider both benefits and costs before making a policy decision. "That's just common sense and rational government practice," he said in the 2014 case.

With an allusion to this earlier position of Kavanaugh, Olson argues that the government did not consider any of the potential difficulties for DACA beneficiaries or costs for the country the deferred action policy has ended.

"Data just before Secretary Duke's memorandum showed that over 90 percent of DACA recipients were employed at the time," Olson wrote in his letter. "And research from 2017 estimates that ending the federal government's DACA would result in $ 60 billion in lost revenues and the elimination of $ 215 billion in lost revenue from GDP."

Attorney General Francisco replied that cost analysis "would make little sense if the relevant costs of maintaining the policy were not only monetary, but would also affect public confidence in the DHS and the rule of law, as well as the potential diversion of In the overall work of the agency. "

Overall, Francisco argued that the government wanted to" send a strong, consistent message that illegal immigration would not be tolerated, and policies like DACA clearly undermine the clarity of that message. "

Source link