Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Available On Air Stations
Watch Live

KPBS Midday Edition

Judge Deals Big Setback To Trump On 'Dreamers' Program

FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2018, file photo, demonstrators rally in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) outside the Capitol Washington.
Associated Press
FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2018, file photo, demonstrators rally in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) outside the Capitol Washington.
Judge Deals Big Setback To Trump On 'Dreamers' Program
Judge Deals Big Setback To Trump On 'Dreamers' Program GUEST:Dan Eaton, partner, Seltzer, Caplan, McMahon and Vitek

A federal judge has agreed with an expanded previous court ruling to extend the deferred action on childhood arrivals program. Judge John D. Bates in Washington D.C. ruled that DACA should continue and even start accepting new applicants. He gave the government 90 days to respond. Judge Bates found so far the Justice Department provided "meager Lisle -- legal reasoning" for ending DACA. Thank you for joining me. >> Is this ruling based on similar concerns when they ruled DACA should continue? >> Yes. In the broader sense, yes. The rescission was insufficiently explained and therefore in its form, violated the procedure act. That is what is driving this at this point. This judge said, maybe the homeland -- department of homeland security can fix this. >>> One question about these rulings in support of DACA, the Obama administration started this by executive decision. Why can't Trump department terminated? >> It is still governed by the administrative procedure act, which requires certain things, the rescission, and among other things requires a sufficient explanation for why they are doing it and prohibits them from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Particularly where you are talking about a program that involves three quarters of 1 million people who have reliance interests. It can't just say it will yank it without explaining why. They have to offer an explanation. The judge found that wanting in this case. >> What points have the Justice Department argued in support of ending DACA? >> They say this program is unlawful. They say there is both unlawful and significant litigation risk that if we don't resend, someone will sue us, particularly Texas, and invalidate DACA. For those reasons we get ahead of the curve and resend this out -- outright. As far as it being unlawful, they claim it is unconstitutional and violated the president's duty to faithfully execute the laws and violated the scope of the president's right under the immigration and nationality act and for that reason it was unlawful and two, with respect to either was litigation risk, they point to Texas having suited to invalidate the DACA program, which is the program that dealt with parents and said there was some indication that -- the same reasoning would apply. >> The Chubb administration wanted the Supreme Court to settle the question but they turned it down. >> Too soon. We're talking procedurally, it is procedurally immature. The Supreme Court one of the lower court to think about this and allow the issue to percolate fully. The Supreme Court does not like to take issues before they are in a procedural posture and have been sufficiently vetted. Then they can make a meaningful decision that will have some degree of banality. The Supreme Court has very limited resources. >> The ruling by Judge Bates goes one step further than the previous rulings in support of DACA. It orders the program to accept new applicants. The other courts seem to suggest they did not have the authority to allow new applications. Why the difference? >> In a footnote, Judge Bates explained there is no principled distinction between renewal and abscess of the department of homeland security cannot ask these defects that the judge identified within 90 days, he says you have to allow new applicants to come forward. He is not saying the department of homeland security lacks the power to resend DACA, 9/3 of the other judges, what he is saying is the way with they went about rescinding it does not work. It is arbitrary and capricious and insufficiently explained and if the department of homeland security can fix that, the rescission cannot stand. If it is not fixed in 90 days, they will have to accept renewals and new applicants. >> There have been new federal rulings supporting reinstatement. If after 90 days the arguments are not persuasive, what happens next? People >> People can start replying again. Renewal is already in place with respect to the other federal crew -- court rulings -- an important part of why he issued the ruling he did. The issue is the department of homeland security has to come forward with something. The plaintiffs are going to say, it is not enough. Ultimately, with a flush out their reasons as to why DACA was unlawful in the first place? And why was the litigation risk more real than what they have identified so far, which judge Bates found was arbitrary and capricious. >> Does the really make it more like Lee that the Supreme Court will look at this? >> Yes. This will go up to the DC circuit. You have all of these courts that are looking at this very closely. The first time you see Court of Appeal ruling definitively, the Supreme Court will take notice. They are moving on a fast track right now. The resolution of this will be measured in months and not years. >> I've been speaking with Dan Eaton. Dan, thank you. >> Thank you, Maureen.

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must resume a program that has shielded hundreds of thousands of young immigrants from deportation but gave it 90 days to restate its arguments before his order takes effect.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington, if it survives the 90-day reprieve, would be a new setback for the administration because it would require the administration to accept requests from first-time applicants for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Two nationwide injunctions earlier this year applied only to renewal requests.

RELATED: Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It ‘Capricious’

Advertisement

Bates said the administration's decision to end DACA, announced in September, relied on "meager legal reasoning." He invited the Department of Homeland Security to try again, "this time providing a fuller explanation for the determination that the program lacks statutory and constitutional authority."

The judge, ruling in favor of Princeton University and the NAACP, wrote Tuesday that the administration's explanation was "particularly egregious" because it didn't mention that many of the hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries had obtained jobs and pursued education based on the assumption that they would be allowed to renew.

The Homeland Security Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration said in September that it would phase out DACA over six months, calling the program started in 2012 under President Barack Obama an abuse of executive power. It said it was forced to act because Texas and other states threatened to sue, raising the prospect of a chaotic end to the program.

Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber said he was "delighted."

"While the decision does not fully resolve the uncertainty facing DACA beneficiaries, it unequivocally rejects the rationale the government has offered for ending the program and makes clear that the (Department of Homeland Security) acted arbitrarily and capriciously," he said.

Advertisement

In January, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled that the administration failed to justify ending the program and his nationwide injunction forced the administration to resume accepting renewal requests within a week. U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis in New York issued a similar ruling in February.

RELATED: Arizona Supreme Court Denies DACA Students In-State Tuition

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration's unusual request to leapfrog appeals courts on Alsup's injunction in February, ensuring that DACA would stay for at least several months and perhaps until well after midterm elections in November. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put its review of Alsup's decision on fast track, but legal experts don't expect a decision until June at the earliest. From there, it is expected to go to the Supreme Court.

A federal judge in Maryland has ruled in the administration's favor.

Nearly 690,000 people were enrolled when the Trump administration said in September that it was ending the program, eight out of 10 from Mexico. To qualify, they needed to have arrived before their 16th birthday, been under 31 in June 2012, completed high school or served in the military, and have clean criminal records. The two-year-permits are subject to renewal.