WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared divided over the legality of President Donald Trump’s effort to rescind a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children - dubbed “Dreamers” - part of his tough immigration policies.
Prootesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices were scheduled to hear oral arguments in the consolidation of three cases before the court regarding the Trump administration’s bid to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in Washington, U.S., November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Midway through oral arguments in the case, several conservative justices appeared sceptical that courts can even review the Republican president’s 2017 plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which had been implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. Liberal justices emphasized the large number of individuals, businesses and others that have relied on the programme.
The court’s 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices - Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh - appointed by Trump.
Trump’s administration has argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he created DACA by executive action, bypassing Congress. Trump has made his hardline immigration policies - cracking down on legal and illegal immigration and pursuing construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border - a centerpiece of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.
DACA currently shields about 660,000 immigrants - mostly Hispanic young adults - from deportation and provides them work permits, though not a path to citizenship. The Supreme Court is hearing the administration’s appeals of lower court rulings in California, New York and the District of Columbia that blocked Trump’s move and left DACA in place.
The lower courts ruled that Trump’s move to rescind DACA was likely “arbitrary and capricious” and violated a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
The justices must determine whether administration officials failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to end DACA. The initial memo rescinding DACA, the plaintiffs said, gave a “one-sentence explanation” and did not spell out why the administration believes the programme is unlawful. The justices will also have to decide whether the administration’s action against DACA is even something courts can review.
The challengers who sued to stop Trump’s action included a collection of states such as California and New York, people currently protected by the programme and civil rights groups.
Several hundred DACA supporters gathered outside the court on a gray and chilly Tuesday morning, chanting, banging drums and carrying signs that read “home is here” and “defend DACA.”
Anel Medina, a 28-year-old DACA enrollee and oncology nurse in Philadelphia, was among the demonstrators.
“It changed my life. I was able to get a job ... finish nursing school,” said Medina, who was born in Mexico City and brought by her mother to the United States at age 5.
Medina said she was a college student and living without legal status when Obama launched DACA.
Arisaid Gonzalez Porras and her brother Sergio, both DACA recipients and undergraduate students at Georgetown University, said they came to the rally to show the public who benefits from the programme.
‘A DEAL WILL BE MADE’
Trump has given mixed messages about the “Dreamers,” saying in 2017 that he has “a great love” for them even as he sought to kill a programme that protected them from deportation. Ahead of the arguments on Tuesday, his tone was darker.
“Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Immigrants who had been convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor crimes were not eligible to apply to the DACA programme and any DACA recipient can be stripped of the programme’s protections and deported if they commit serious crimes.
Trump added, “If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!” Trump offered no details of any deal.
Trump previously has called on Congress to “advance responsible immigration reform” but never proposed a detailed replacement for DACA.
Ken Cuccinelli, the Trump administration’s acting director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, said in a statement on Tuesday that DACA is “a de facto amnesty programme for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.”
“If Congress wants to shield these aliens from deportation and provide them a legal status, that is its prerogative,” Cuccinelli added. “In the meantime, DHS (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) is a law-enforcement agency and nothing should keep it from enforcing the law.”
Obama created DACA to protect immigrants who as minors were brought into the United States illegally or overstayed a visa. Obama acted after Congress failed to pass a bipartisan immigration policy overhaul that would have provided a path to citizenship to these young immigrants.
The young people protected under DACA, Obama said, were raised and educated in the United States, grew up as Americans and often know little about their countries of origin.
The programme, which allows eligible immigrants to obtain renewable two-year work permits, remains in effect for those already enrolled but the administration has refused to approve new applications.
The “Dreamers” moniker is based on the name of bipartisan legislation - never passed - called the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act that would have granted these young immigrants legal status.
(Graphic showing major cases currently before the Supreme Court: here)
Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Ted Hesson and Susan Heavey; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Will Dunham