Supreme Court Saves DACA Protections For Dreamers

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, preserving protections for some 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants, often referred to as Dreamers. The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor concurring. For the second time this week Roberts again sided with the liberals. On Monday, he sided with them when the court ruled that LGBTQ Americans are protected under the Civil Rights Act.

The DACA ruling emphasized that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the program. “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” The court found a reasoned explanation was lacking in this case. The decision is a blow to the Trump administration since it reverses a Trump election promise and means that for now, participants in the DACA program can continue to renew their work authorizations and temporary protection from deportation.

Brief History of DACA

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an Obama-era executive order allowing undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children to apply for a two-year deferral from deportation, and authorizing a work permit, social security number, and potential for international travel if they met certain criteria. President Obama chose this avenue after he was unable to gain Congressional support for more comprehensive immigration reform. It was a piecemeal measure that represented the best he could do in the area of immigration at the time.

The criteria that were set down for the Dreamers were:

They have lived in the United States for a continuous five years prior to June 15, 2012 and were in the United States on June 15, 2012;

They were enrolled in school, or were a high school graduate, had received a general education development certificate, or are were an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

Had never been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, multiple misdemeanors, or were a threat to national security or public safety; and

Recipients were eligible for renewal, provided that they still met the initial criteria and filed an application for renewal.

To some degree the Dreamers became a political football, kicked back and forth between the Republicans and the Democrats. During elections, each party promised to address their problem, but neither party really delivered. Over the years, as Dreamers aged and waited for some relief, despite the best of intentions on all sides, no relief came.

Background to Litigation

On September 5th, 2017, the Trump administration announced its decision to phase out DACA over the following six months. The rescission would have left the Dreamers without status and subject to removal beginning March 5, 2018. The decision was immediately challenged by several lawsuits, starting with Regents of the Univ. of Cal. V. Dept. of Homeland Security in the Northern District of California, who argued that the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA was “arbitrary, capricious, and without legal basis, thus violating the Administrative Procedural Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” On January 9th, 2018, the federal court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, citing that the university and its students would suffer irreparable harm by losing DACA recipients and their economic and other contributions as students or employees.

A number of other organizations also challenged the rescission, resulting in three nationwide injunctions issued by District Courts in California, New York, and Washington, D.C. In addition, on May 1, 2018, 10 states, led by Texas, sued the Administration, challenging the creation of DACA in 2012. These states asked the Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas to halt implementation of the program while it decided the legal issues in the case. The judge held that, while the states are likely to succeed in showing that DACA is unlawful, an injunction was not in the public interest. That set the stage for the Supreme Court DACA ruling.

Advantages of the Decision

There are several reasons to applaud the Court’s ruling. For one, the Center for American Progress not long ago estimated the potential wasted economic benefits for terminating DACA would have been over $430 billion in gross domestic product over the next decade. Since most DREAMers came to the United States as small children and have been here ever since, they argue they are as American as anyone who is native-born. DACA recipients point out that they purchase homes, invest in small businesses, that they are teachers who educate our children, or doctors and nurses who care for our sick and our elderly. In other words, they are real people with real families that have made real contributions to America. 

No doubt this issue will be central to the upcoming presidential election in November. While both parties publicly state they favor a solution for the Dreamers, they cannot seem to agree on how to resolve the problem. For the time being, however, the Dreamers have won a reprieve.