“The appropriate recourse,” Roberts wrote, is “to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”DHS may be able to find a better lawyer than Jeff Sessions this time. Being in government means setting priorities. As a result, the government has records on people in the program. That none-of-your-business argument is sometimes correct, but it has become the solicitor general’s go-to trope under Trump in a wide variety of areas, and may be wearing a bit thin.
"Congress now has the opportunity to advance responsible immigration reform that puts American jobs and American security first," Trump said. In this case, the government argued that DACA itself was a simple “nonenforcement” decision, and thus not reviewable in court. “DHS may determine, in the particular context before it, that other interests and policy concerns outweigh any reliance interests,” Roberts wrote. Roberts’s opinion left open the possibility that a properly executed rescission might stand. The agency did not even pretend to do that.If the administration goes ahead with another try at rescission, the next challenge will be heard after November.But the Supreme Court refused to say that rescinding DACA won’t occur in the future.TheAtlantic.com Copyright (c) 2020 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. But the fact is, Sessions didn’t bother to make them. The new homeland-security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, responded with a boilerplate memo basically just saying that she had no need to rethink the decision, because DACA was unlawful.
“Making that difficult decision was the agency’s job, but the agency failed to do it.”The Sessions memo and the rescission memos, Roberts then wrote, did not come close to fulfilling the APA’s procedures: “DHS was ‘required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns,’” Roberts wrote. But that, under administrative law, was not the only thing she was supposed to decide: There were issues of how to wind down the program, and how to protect those who relied on it, that she barely nodded to.The Court held, 5–4, that the administration’s purported “rescission” of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious,” and thus had to be, at the very least, redone. I’m not sure that’s exactly how I’d sum it up, but basically, yes. "Sessions said the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would be phased out.
Approximately 800,000 people are recipients under the program.The Trump administration said Tuesday it was ending an Obama-era program allowing young people who came to the country illegally as children to live here free from fear of deportation.It's unclear what the GOP Congress will do, however.The end of the program has led to fear that those benefiting from it could be deported, and that their participation would make it easier for authorities to find them.
The administration, if it wants one, gets a do-over. The new homeland-security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, responded with a boilerplate memo basically just saying that she had no need to rethink the decision, because DACA was unlawful. But the majority wasn’t having it.