This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-daca-dreamers.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Will Hear ‘Dreamers’ Case It’s Now the Supreme Court’s Turn to Try to Resolve the Fate of the Dreamers
(about 11 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether the Trump administration may shut down a program that shields some 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants from deportation, the court said on Friday. WASHINGTON — For seven years, the so-called Dreamers — nearly 800,000 young men and women who were brought to the United States illegally as children — have lived in limbo, protected from immediate deportation but without the guarantee of any permanent future in the United States.
The court will hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October, and will probably issue its decision in the spring or summer of 2020, ensuring a fierce immigration debate over the outcome in the midst of the presidential campaign. On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve their fate, an announcement that sets in motion what is likely to be a yearlong legal clash over immigration policy and the power of the presidency that will probably culminate next summer with a ruling by the justices.
Mr. Trump tried to end the program in 2017, when he called it an unconstitutional use of executive power by President Barack Obama and revived the threat of deportation for immigrants who had been brought to the United States illegally as young children. But by agreeing to take the case, the Supreme Court also provided a window of opportunity during which the Republicans and Democrats in Congress could permanently resolve the status of the young immigrants, perhaps by giving them a chance to earn citizenship.
But federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, while legal challenges move forward. At stake is a program that protects Dreamers known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, that President Barack Obama created through executive action in 2012. Mr. Trump tried to end the program in 2017, calling it an “end-run around Congress” and saying that Mr. Obama’s use of executive authority to protect the immigrants violated “the core tenets that sustain our Republic.”
The fate of the DACA program and the young immigrants it protects, who are often called Dreamers, has been at the center of some of the most heated immigration debates in Washington since Mr. Trump became president. Members of both parties, as well as Mr. Trump on several occasions, have expressed sympathy for the Dreamers, many of them fully assimilated young men and women in school or with careers. But there is no evidence that a deal is likely.
Lawmakers in both parties had urged Mr. Trump not to end it, but he rejected that advice in September of 2017, calling the program an “end-run around Congress” and saying that Mr. Obama’s use of executive authority to protect the immigrants violated “the core tenets that sustain our Republic.” For years, lawmakers have failed to reach any kind of consensus despite repeated attempts at negotiation. In 2018, a possible deal collapsed amid demands from Mr. Trump for restrictive changes to immigration laws and billions of dollars to build a wall along the southwestern border.
At the same time, Mr. Trump — who has often expressed sympathy for the young immigrants — delayed the program’s termination by six months and urged Congress to pass legislation that would permanently protect them from deportation and give them an eventual path to citizenship. This month, the Democrat-led House passed sweeping legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers and other immigrants whose legal status Mr. Trump has targeted. But the legislation is already languishing in the Republican-controlled Senate, where opponents view it as amnesty for lawbreakers.
With the deadline for the end of the program looming, several attempts to negotiate a deal between the White House and lawmakers failed amid demands from Mr. Trump for restrictive changes to immigration laws and billions of dollars to build a wall along the southwestern border. “We will continue to fight tirelessly to protect these outstanding young men and women as we work to ensure America remains a nation of hope, freedom and opportunity for all,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement after the court’s announcement on Friday.
The immediate pressure to make a deal faded when the courts temporarily forced Mr. Trump to continue operating the program. But that could change again if the court rules that the administration can end it. Immigration advocacy groups have said they plan to urge Dreamers to renew their protections under DACA, which expire every two years, until the fate of the program is decided by Congress or the Supreme Court. Since July 1, the federal government has approved more than 373,000 renewal requests.
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to end the DACA program, making it part of the anti-immigrant message that helped fire up his supporters. When he won, he promised to follow through even as he expressed sympathy for the Dreamers, a group of whom he had met with years earlier. On the day of his inauguration, he told a Democratic senator that he should not worry about the young immigrants.
But by September 2017, a group of conservative state attorneys general were threatening to sue the government if the president refused to make good on his promise to end the DACA program. Against the advice of lawmakers in both parties, Mr. Trump ordered that the program be terminated.
At the same time, Mr. Trump delayed the program’s end by six months, saying he wanted to give Congress time to pass legislation that would permanently protect the Dreamers from deportation and give them an eventual path to citizenship.
“We will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion — but through the lawful Democratic process,” Mr. Trump said in a statement after ending the program. “It is now time for Congress to act!”
Mr. Trump’s six-month deadline initially put pressure on lawmakers in both parties to reach a deal. But that faded when a lower court judge blocked his decision to end DACA and ordered the government to continue operating it.
In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled against the administration. It acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the policies of earlier administrations but said the legal rationale offered by the Trump administration did not withstand scrutiny. The court also questioned “the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”In November, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled against the administration. It acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the policies of earlier administrations but said the legal rationale offered by the Trump administration did not withstand scrutiny. The court also questioned “the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”
In May, a second federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., issued a similar ruling.In May, a second federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., issued a similar ruling.
The Trump administration has long sought to persuade the Supreme Court to rule on whether it had the authority to cancel the program. But the justices turned down an unusual petition seeking review filed in January 2018, before any appeals court had ruled. The administration asked again in November 2018, not long before the Ninth Circuit ruled. For many months, the Supreme Court took no action on the request, which was at odds with the court’s usual practice. The Trump administration has long sought to persuade the Supreme Court to rule on whether it had the authority to cancel the program. But the justices turned down an unusual petition seeking review in January 2018, before any appeals court had ruled. The administration asked again in November, not long before the Ninth Circuit ruled.
In May, the administration filed yet another petition, this one seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s decision. For many months, the Supreme Court took no action on the request, which was at odds with the court’s usual practice.
The administration has argued that the program was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority, relying on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, concerning a related program. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of that ruling. On Friday, before the justices left for their summer break, the court agreed to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, along with two others in which appeals courts have not yet ruled: Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588, and McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589.
But the Ninth Circuit said the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis. The appeals court affirmed a nationwide injunction ordering the administration to retain major elements of the program while the case moved forward. Such nationwide injunctions, which have been used by courts to block executive actions in both the Obama and the Trump administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism. The administration has argued that the program was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority, relying on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, that shut down a related program created by Mr. Obama, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, saying he had exceeded his statutory authority.
The decision by the Supreme Court to take the case could provide new motivation for lawmakers and the White House to try and reach a deal before a ruling that might open hundreds of thousands of immigrants to the threat of immediate deportation. In his executive action establishing DAPA, which was blocked by courts before it went into effect, Mr. Obama would have allowed as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who were the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program sparing them from deportation and providing them work permits.
If a deal is not reached, a decision by the court next summer could roil the presidential campaign, no matter which way the court rules. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, leaving it in place and ending what Mr. Obama had hoped would become one of his central legacies.
The Trump administration has argued that the DAPA ruling meant that DACA was also unlawful.
In its decision in November, the Ninth Circuit said the two programs differed in important ways, rejecting the administration’s legal analysis. The appeals court affirmed a nationwide injunction ordering the administration to retain major elements of the program while the case moved forward.
Such nationwide injunctions, which have been used by courts to block executive actions in both the Obama and the Trump administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October. If a deal is not reached, a decision by the court next summer could roil the presidential campaign, no matter which way the court rules.
A decision to let the Trump administration end the program could energize angry Democratic voters and immigration advocates to campaign even more aggressively against the president. If the court prevents Mr. Trump from ending DACA, that could fire up his base of voters.A decision to let the Trump administration end the program could energize angry Democratic voters and immigration advocates to campaign even more aggressively against the president. If the court prevents Mr. Trump from ending DACA, that could fire up his base of voters.