Is DACA doomed? Supreme Court signals it sides with Trump

Supporters of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12, 2019, in advance of the court considering whether the Trump administration is legally allowed to end the program. Photo by Robin Bravender | Arizona Mirror

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appears unlikely to salvage an Obama-era program that has allowed hundreds of thousands of young immigrants with no legal status known as “dreamers” to remain in the country without immediate fear of deportation.

Lawyers defending the program – known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA – argued Tuesday that the Trump administration broke the law when it rescinded the program in 2017. Hundreds of protestors echoed the sentiment Tuesday, chanting, “Home is here!” and other pro-immigrant messages on the streets in front of the high court. 

Former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano – who as head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama authored the memo that created DACA – called its benefits “substantial.” She is now president of the University of California, a party to the case.

“I think and would hope, if they actually did a real analysis of DACA, they would recognize that this is a valid exercise of the executive’s authority,” she told reporters after the hearing.

But the court’s conservatives seemed to disagree. During extended arguments in three consolidated cases, they seemed to endorse the legality of the administration’s decision to end the program and suggested that the question doesn’t even merit judicial scrutiny. 

“I assume that was a very considered decision,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s most recent appointment to the bench, said of the decision to end it. “Now we can agree with it or disagree with the merits of it” … but “what is the shortfall?” 

Even if the decision were illegal, the judicial branch couldn’t necessarily fix it, Chief Justice John Roberts said. 

“It’s not always the case when the government acts illegally in a way that affects other people that we go back and untangle all of the consequences of that,” he said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee to the high court, struggled with the issue of “reviewability.” 

“I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts … and they speak to all of us,” he said. “But what’s the limiting principal?” 

Arizona is one of 13 states who have asked the court to end DACA, on the grounds that the program has caused “irreparable harm” to the state because it has had to provide services such as health care, education and law enforcement for recipients. In Arizona, DACA beneficiaries aren’t eligible for state-subsidized financial assistance at higher education institutions. Arizona also doesn’t provide people with DACA government-funded health insurance.

Inside the courtroom were attentive undocumented youth and adults who would be impacted by the high court’s decision. Karina Ruiz, an Arizona resident who has benefited from DACA since 2013, was among them. Ruiz said she felt frustrated as justices and lawyers glossed over “people’s lives” and focused on legalities. 

“It was really heavy to see that our stories were not even discussed, the humanitarian component of people’s plights,” she said. “It was very technical and I felt very frustrated that that happened. I was very frustrated that my life is at stake, and they are talking about technicalities.”

Temporary protections

The DACA program was created in 2012 to allow certain immigrants who arrived to the United States before age 16 to apply for temporary protection from deportation and work permits. There were roughly 661,000 active participants in the program as of June 30.

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to “end” what he has characterized as an illegal program. His administration made good on his promise in September 2017, but lower courts blocked the decision from taking effect.

In June, the U.S. House passed legislation that would safeguard the program and provide a pathway to citizenship for dreamers. But the bill is languishing in the GOP-controlled Senate, which is unlikely to act on it.

“We hope and pray that the courts will do the right thing,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a news conference after the arguments. She pointed to the bill passed by the House more than 160 days ago, which she pledged to drop off at the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). 

On Tuesday morning, in a tweet that inaccurately characterized dreamers as criminals, Trump tweeted that President Barack Obama had “no legal right” to create the program but said he would make a deal with Democrats to allow DACA recipients to stay if the program is overturned. To qualify for DACA, applicants must not have any felony convictions, among other requirements

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) accused Trump on Tuesday of playing politics with the dreamers who rely on the program. 

“The president’s relentless scapegoating of immigrants is the most un-American thing I can think of,” Schumer said. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s more liberal jurists, took issue with the administration’s attacks on the program during the arguments Tuesday. She called it legal and said she supports its efforts to defer deportation of dreamers – more than 90 percent of whom are employed and nearly half of whom are in school, according to a 2017 survey

Such law-abiding immigrants and their families rely on the program, she said. Trump, meanwhile, has said he would protect DACA recipients but he hasn’t – an as-yet empty promise that she said must be considered when ruling on the case. 

“This is about our choice to destroy lives,” she said.

But Gorsuch and others suggested that the administration has adequately considered such “reliance interests.” 

A ruling in favor of the Trump administration would not necessarily result in the immediate deportation of dreamers, according to Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. But it would threaten their ability to live in the United States and would deprive them of legal authorization to work and to access certain social benefits.

The ruling – expected next spring or summer – will also likely inflame partisan divisions over immigration and could influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest. A majority of the public backs the DACA program, polls show, though support is stronger among Democrats and independents than Republicans.