The U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Rescission of DACA

In a major 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held on June 18, 2020 that administrative officials unlawfully ended a 2012 federal protection that provided temporary legal status for immigrants illegally brought into the United States as children also known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.

DACA is a program that allows certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted relief are also eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits with many becoming the breadwinners of their families. Then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017 advised the Department of Homeland Security to rescind DACA based on that it was unlawful. Opponents of this attempt to rescind DACA challenged this attempt stating that it was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the attempt to rescind DACA was in fact in violation of the APA and vacated the attempt to rescind DACA.

This Supreme Court decision will continue to protect the legal status of over 640,000 individuals and will protect them from deportation. The Supreme Court called the attempt to end DACA “arbitrary and capricious.” However, as Chief Justice Roberts proclaimed, “we address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it will provide a reasoned explanation for its action.” This could present future issues for DACA recipients as the country’s administration attempts to find ways to curtail the Obama-era policy.

 

The reason why this administrative attempt to end DACA failed is because the decision failed to follow repeal procedures reneging on promises to DACA recipients or Dreamers and their employers that personal information they provided to the government would not be used to deport them. The Supreme Court based this decision on Franklin v. Massachusetts 505 U.S. 788, 796 (1992). “The APA sets forth procedures by which federal agencies are accountable and their actions subject to review by courts.” Id. Agency decisions may be set aside if they are “arbitrary” or “capricious” 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A). This Supreme Court decision will not end the future attempts of government administration from trying to end DACA with a new rationale that addresses the factors that the Supreme Court noted were failed to be followed.

Future Considerations and Effects Regarding DACA

 Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his decision that “the dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” 591 U.S. (2020) at 9. “We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies.” Id. at 29. The court concluded that the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. The Supreme Court provided that the appropriate basis for action is to remand to DHS so that it could consider the problem anew.

Based on the decision of the Supreme Court, it is expected that the government administration will again try to rescind DACA, but while following more closely the procedures under the APA.  For now, eligible individuals for DACA may be able to still apply. Organizations still are refusing to accept new applications, but based on the Supreme Court decision, the program is being restored to what it was in 2012 when it went into effect, until at least when the government administration attempts to rescind it again. Democratic opponents to the current Trump Administration view DACA as a positive to America’s institutions. Democratic candidate Joe Biden announced that if he wins the U.S. presidential election in 2020, he will look to provide DACA recipients with a path to citizenship.

As the nature of DACA evolves, we will continue to monitor updates to provide our readers with updated news as decisions are made regarding the future of immigration in America.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

action children court daca deferred ending failed supreme why