Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: DACA at SCOTUS: A Tremendous Victory for Immigrant Youth and our Nation

WASHINGTON – On news that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and consolidated cases — holding that the Trump Administration’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (DACA) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — Elizabeth Wydra, President of Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief supporting DACA on behalf of current and bipartisan former Members of Congress, issued the following statement:

This is a tremendous victory.

The law requires our government to act with reason and transparency, but the Trump Administration’s attempt to end DACA was a democratic shambles on that score, with the lives of the DACA recipients held in the balance. The Court rightly concluded that the Trump Administration’s failure to consider the hardship that its policy would cause to hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients, who know this country as their only home, was unlawful, as was its failure to consider their reliance on DACA. As we know after almost four years, however, this Administration is a repeat offender when it comes to failing to consider fully the impact of its actions and be transparent about why it’s taking them.

#

Resources:

CAC brief in cases consolidated with Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-trump-v-naacp-and-mcaleenan-v-vidal/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org. 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.