The latest ruling again orders the administration to process renewal applications from existing DACA recipients, but stops short of ordering the administration to accept new applications from individuals who hadn't been part of the program before. As Mother Jones has written, the Trump administration has taken the rare step of appealing Alsup's decision straight to the Supreme Court. If you are willing to accept the idea that the President can summon such a program into existence with the stroke of a pen rather than through the passage of new legislation by Congress, then you're on thin ice saying that a subsequent president can't modify or terminate the program in the same way.
In a preliminary ruling, he ordered the government to keep processing DACA applications and renewal requests, echoing the January 9 ruling of a judge in San Francisco.
The agency had already begun to accept renewal applications under the first court order. The record doesn't support this argument, Garaufis found, and would be likewise arbitrary and capricious " in light of defendants' failure to explain their decision or to consider any factors that might have weighed against ending the DACA program". "The Executive Branch has wide discretion not to initiate or pursue specific enforcement actions".
"Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well", said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. Garaufis linked to a September 5 from President Trump that read, "Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do)". In one September tweet he said that if Congress didn't act, "I will revisit this issue". "We are also pleased that the Court made clear that United States Attorney General Sessions was wrong when he claimed DACA was illegal and that the DOJ was wrong to claim that any court has deemed DACA unconstitutional". The DREAM Act - Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors - was legislation that offered numerous same protections as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals administrative program but never passed Congress. For undocumented immigrants brought here as babies or children, there's simply no system in place to get approved green cards or other legal status that could lead to citizenship. The court could announce as soon as Friday afternoon whether it will hearing the case.
The legal battle over DACA complicates a debate now underway in Congress on whether to change the nation's immigration laws. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress. "The Department of Homeland Security therefore acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner".
"Now there are judges who have declared the illegality of Trump's decision from coast to coast", Schneiderman said in a statement. The judge ordered the administration to process DACA renewal applications on the same terms as had been in place before the president took his action. "The Justice Department argues that DACA was an illegal overreach by the Obama White House, and was likely to be overturned in court". "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so".