Supreme Court gives ‘Dreamers’ a reprieve
Justices only rule Trump’s repeal of DACA was illegal
In a stunning victory for undocumented immigrants across the country, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Trump acted illegally when he repealed DACA, the program established by President Barack Obama that grants deportation relief and work permits to individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
Across the Bay Area and beyond, immigrants and supporters celebrated the decision with demonstrations, news conferences, and even a celebratory car rally in Sacramento with decorations marking the decision. In San Francisco, marchers held a socially distant rally outside the office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
But the win may only be temporary. The 54 ruling said only that
Trump failed to adequately explain his decision in 2017 to eliminate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and that he neglected to consider the impact on more than 700,000 immigrants who relied on
the program. The court did not rule out reaching a different conclusion in the future if the administration offered a more convincing justification for its action — events that will likely depend on the outcome of the presidential election in November.
If DACA is ultimately salvaged under a new administration, the program, as it stands, would not provide participants with a longterm path to citizenship.
The Obama administration created the program in 2012 for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally before age 16 who have attended school or served in the military and have no serious criminal record. It was intended to offer a reprieve to these young people, many of whom had lived in the U.S. for most of their life. Eligible immigrants could renew their status every two years.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was largely backed by the court’s four more liberal justices.
The ruling was narrow in scope and did not say whether Obama acted legally in creating DACA in 2012 by executive action after Congress deadlocked on immigration legislation.
“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts said. But he said Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, which issued the order terminating the program, failed to “provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” and “what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”
The court said Trump had the authority to repeal the program if he followed legal standards and could try again to do so, subject to further judicial review. Although the timetable for such an action is uncertain, Trump would have ample time to act if he wins reelection in November.
Thursday’s decision brings longawaited relief to the “Dreamers,” as supporters called them, who have relied on DACA for work and educational opportunities since its inception — opportunities that they probably wouldn’t have had if the program didn’t exist, according to DACA recipients and advocates.
Valeria Blanco, a DACA recipient and student at UC Davis, woke up Thursday exactly when the decision came down at 7 a.m. and immediately checked her phone. When she saw the ruling on Twitter, she embraced her family and cried.
“I’m shaking. I have no words,” said Blanco, who was brought to the U.S. from Peru at age 6. “I was not expecting this. I thought it was going to go the other way.”
At its creation, DACA covered 645,000 undocumented immigrants. Since 2018, immigration officials have approved 712,610 renewals, according to state Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office, which said more than 180,000 DACA participants lived in California as of March.
“If the court had ruled the other way, it would have made hundreds of thousands of young people immediately subject to the risk of deportation, as well as losing their ability to work,” said Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California, the lead plaintiff in the case. Napolitano was also secretary of Homeland Security under Obama and issued the memo that created DACA.
In ordering an end to DACA three years ago, Trump argued that Obama overstepped his authority in creating it. Since then, the administration has stopped taking new applications but has been required by the courts to let existing participants renew their permits. Thursday’s ruling did not require the government to reopen the program to new applicants, but a lower court could order that step, said Stephen YaleLoehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell University.
In the ruling, Roberts quoted legal arguments by supporters of the program, who said that participants in DACA have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA program. An abrupt repeal, he said, could cause harm “to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.”
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Obama administration had established DACA “without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception.”
Such programs can be created only by congressional legislation, said Thomas, who accused the majority of “timidity.” He was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
In a separate dissent, Justice
Brett Kavanaugh said the court should have ruled in Trump’s favor but added that the issue should be resolved by congressional legislation, not executive action.
Congress “could produce a sturdy and enduring solution to this issue, one way or the other, and thereby remove the uncertainty that has persisted for years for these young immigrants and the nation’s immigration system,” Kavanaugh said.
Trump administration officials endorsed the dissenters’ views.
“The DACA program was created out of thin air and implemented illegally,” said Chad Wolf, acting secretary of Homeland Security. “This ruling usurps the clear authority of the executive branch to end unlawful programs.”
Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, said he doesn’t think the Trump administration can “successfully rescind” the program in the future. But DACA needs to become part of a broader plan for immigration reform to secure its longevity, he said.
“It can’t be just a twoyear renewal program, and it’s got to be part of a package of comprehensive review,” Rosenbaum said. “There’s a lot of discussion among policymakers who recognize the importance of the immigrant community to this nation.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a victory for the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who contribute to their communities.
“We need a permanent solution for undocumented Californians and acknowledge that a pathway to citizenship is not enough,” Newsom said in a statement. “This moment reminds us we are confronting the systemic injustice and racism that exists within our nation and institutions.”
Becerra, who led a multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration after it rescinded the program, said justice prevailed Thursday “for every Dreamer who has worked hard to help build our country — our neighbors, teachers, doctors, and first responders.”
“Today, America told the
Dreamers that this is their home,” Becerra said.
For Blanco, the UC Davis student, the ruling brought relief.
“This has been on my mind for two years,” said Blanco, 20, who spent the morning watching the news with family in Pleasanton. “For someone who already deals with anxiety, having that uncertainty about what my future holds has brought so much pain to me in the last two years.”
On Twitter last fall, Trump declared that some DACA recipients were “tough, hardened criminals.” He provided no evidence and did not mention that immigrants who committed serious crimes would be ineligible for the program.
On Thursday, Trump slammed “horrible and politically charged” decisions coming out of the Supreme Court, calling them “shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or conservatives.”
“Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” he tweeted.
Critics have blasted DACA for allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country and say Obama did not have the authority to establish the program.
“We opposed DACA from the outset. We did not believe Obama had the constitutional authority to implement it in the first place,” said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation on American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. “Amnesty has never been the way to deal with illegal immigration. It simply has not shown any results in stemming illegal immigration, in fact it just encourages more people to do this.”
A key benefit of DACA is the ability to work legally in the United States — a factor that has become even more critical during the coronavirus pandemic.
Nearly 30,000 health care workers rely on DACA for employment, according to the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. About 200 DACA recipients are in medical school.
Immigration advocates and health organizations called on the Supreme Court to support DACA in recent weeks as undocumented health care workers fought the pandemic on the front lines.
“DACA recipients have responded to the call by continuing to provide vital patient care,” Dr. Susan R. Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized that upholding a rollback of the DACA program would have reduced our nation’s healthcare capacity at a time when we can ill afford it.”