Immigration and Citizenship

RELEASE: Trump Administration Tries to Convince SCOTUS to Take Responsibility for Catastrophic Consequences of Rescinding DACA

“If President Trump wants to make the choice to destroy lives, as Justice Sotomayor put it, he needs to own that decision and take public responsibility for it.” — CAC Chief counsel Brianne Gorod

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument over the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy at the Supreme Court, which Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod attended, Gorod issued the following reaction:

It’s stunning how little time this morning the Administration’s lawyer spent defending the proposition that DACA is unlawful—presumably because that argument is so difficult to make, given the broad discretion Congress has long conferred on the executive branch to make these types of enforcement decisions. Instead the Administration’s lawyer kept insisting that the Administration’s decision also rested on other grounds. But as multiple justices pointed out, it is bedrock law that the courts review the reasons that the agency gave when it acted, not reasons it gave after the fact. It’s telling that the Solicitor General doesn’t seem to want that here.

In addition, Justice Sotomayor powerfully brought home the stakes of the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate DACA, observing that it would “destroy lives.”  The President told the public that the law requires him to make that choice, but that’s wrong, and the Court shouldn’t do the President’s dirty work for him. If the President wants to make the choice to destroy lives, as Justice Sotomayor put it, he needs to own that decision and take public responsibility for it.

#

Resources:

CAC case page, featuring brief on behalf of 172 current members and bipartisan former members of Congress, in 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/

SCOTUSblog symposium: “The DACA cases may be the next big test for the Roberts Court,” Brianne Gorod and Dayna Zolle, September 11, 2019: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/symposium-the-daca-cases-may-be-the-next-big-test-for-the-roberts-court/

##

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 Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Velasco Lopez v. Decker

In Velasco Lopez v. Decker, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the government may incarcerate someone without bail during deportation proceedings without showing that the person would likely abscond or...
Immigration and Citizenship
February 13, 2020

RELEASE: ICE Policy Change Made Illegally Under Matthew Albence Prompts Lawsuit

“This Administration should not be allowed to thumb its nose at the Constitution and laws...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Rachel Goodman (Counsel for Protect Democracy), Cecelia Friedman Levin (Policy Director of ASISTA Immigration Assistance)
Immigration and Citizenship
January 28, 2020

Dems Urge 9th Circ. To Reject ‘Indefinite’ Detention Of Minors

Law360
(Article behind paywall.)
By: Dayna Zolle, By Jack Queen
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

In State of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration rule redefining the term “public charge” for...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli

In Make the Road New York v. Cuccinelli, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration rule redefining the term “public charge” for purposes of excluding...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Flores v. Barr

In Flores v. Barr, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether new Trump Administration regulations are inconsistent with the Flores Agreement, a settlement agreement governing “the detention, release, and treatment...