Supreme Court declines to rule on White House appeal of DACA injunction


Supreme Court declines to rule on White House appeal of DACA injunction

So they can breathe easy, for a while - at least until the case winds its way through the federal court system.

In the near future, the lack of a hard deadline may actually make it harder for Congress to come together on an already-contentious issue. DACA now provides protection from deportation and work permits for about 800,000 young people in the US. So, it seems clear to us that a DACA fix must come either as a clean bill or a compromise bill focused on border security specifically.

Federal judges in San Francisco and NY, in January and February 2018 respectively, made Trump's deadline to end the program that protected the Dreamers from deportation, and for legislature to come up with an alternative, temporarily moot.

"USCIS is not accepting requests from individuals who have never before been granted deferred action under DACA", it wrote, but "due to federal court orders on january 9, 2018 and February 13, 2018, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA".

For now, the Trump administration's policy is being considered by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled against the president in other challenges. The Supreme Court denied such request and only stated, "It is assumed that the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case".

It's extremely rare for the Supreme Court to take up a case without a review first by an appellate court.

There are some 700,000 Dreamers, people brought illegally to America as children, who are registered for the DACA program, and the White House has estimated than another million or more could be eligible. Meanwhile, advocates on both sides of the issue continued to press Congress to deal with the issue legislatively. Thereafter, the administration recommenced acceptance of DACA renewal applications. He said the federal judge "unilaterally" reimposed a program "that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected". The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process. What made this appeal unusual is that Trump's lawyer tried to do an end-run around the federal appeals court in San Francisco and go directly to the Supreme Court. Among other things, those eligible must have come to the country before they were 16, continuously lived in the USA since June 15, 2007 and must either be in school, have obtained a GED or high school diploma or have served in the American military.

Time will tell. The Huffington Post reports that "the decision all but ensures that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will remain in effect for recipients after the March 5 deadline originally set by the White House". A permanent, legislative solution is what's needed, not more politicking and more litigation.

Pelosi said Republicans need to allow a vote for a bipartisan Dream Act.

"Democrats will continue to fight to protect Dreamers, who are the pride of our nation", she said. "The district judge's unprecedented order requires the government to sanction indefinitely an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by almost 700,000 aliens", Francisco wrote, referring to the DACA recipients. He announced previous year he would let the program lapse but gave Congress until its March 5 expiration date to work on an alternative as part of a broader immigration proposal that would include money for his proposed wall at the Mexico border.



© 2015 Leader Call. All Rights reserved.