Supreme Court decision extends clock for DACA

DREAMers likely safe at least through the fall

With two brief sentences, the Supreme Court on Monday dramatically changed the debate over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the fate of nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who are part of it. The uncertainty hovering over the program had left DACA enrollees terrified over their future and left Congress so conflicted that DACA negotiations contributed to a three-day government shutdown last month.

By refusing to hear a California case, the high court ensured that DACA will survive at least through the fall, giving DACA enrollees a temporary reprieve from deportation and Congress more time to craft a permanent solution for them.

“This temporary decision is, nonetheless, a great legal victory on behalf of the DACA recipients, who have been hanging by a thread, wondering if their permits would expire in a week,” said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, a group that recruits Hispanics to register to vote.

This is “a great legal victory on behalf of the DACA recipients, who have been hanging by a thread.” Ben Monterroso Executive Director of Mi Familia Vota

President Trump announced in September he would end the Obama-era program, which was protecting nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants from deportation. He set the official termination date as March 5, giving Congress six months to find a legislative solution.

That left DREAMers, undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children before their 18th birthday, in a state of panic, because they would be exposed to deportation if they lost their protections, and would lose the work permits.

Employers were starting to prepare to lay off DACA enrollees. And many participants in the program were unsure whether they would be able to remain in colleges and universities, or continue receiving grants and loans that helped them afford those schools.

Now, those DREAMers can rest a little easier knowing that they will remain protected and can continue renewing their DACA protections as the case moves back to lower courts.

Andrew Pincus, a Supreme Court litigator at the Mayer Brown law firm, said appeals courts would likely rule on several DACA-related lawsuits sometime over the summer. That means the issue would not come back before the Supreme Court until its next term, which begins in October.

Under the court rulings, undocumented immigrants currently in the DACA program can file to renew their two-year terms in the program. No new applicants can apply for DACA during this period.

Congressional leaders had been struggling to meet the March 5 deadline.

Negotiations between Congress and the White House have been heated in recent months. Democrats have been requesting a “clean” bill focused only on protecting DACA enrollees, and Republicans have been demanding enhancements to immigration enforcement and border security in exchange, including billions of dollars to expand the southern border wall.

The impasse led to a three-day government shut down in January, and congressional negotiators remained at a stalemate in recent weeks.

Now, Congress has more time to find that compromise. Immigration advocacy groups warned, however, that Congress should not forget about the DACA issue as they focus on gun violence and the upcoming November elections.

Greisa Martinez, policy and advocacy director for United We Dream, a coalition of young undocumented immigrants, said they will follow through on a planned day of protests in Washington on March 5 to urge Congress to continue negotiating a DACA deal.

“We’ve waited for too long on institutions of power to decide our fate,” Martinez said. “Congress has yet to do its job. We will remind Congress about what is at stake.”

The battle in the courts started last month when U.S. District Judge William Alsup in California ruled that the Trump administration wrongly ended DACA.

California, the University of California system, and several California cities requested that Alsup order the Trump administration to resume DACA. Alsup agreed, arguing that the decision was likely “arbitrary and capricious” and based on a flawed legal premise.

The Department of Justice appealed that ruling straight to the Supreme Court, a rare move that would bypass the regular order of appeals. The Supreme Court said the case should proceed through regular channels.

That means the case now goes back to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California.

That court, which has ruled against other Trump administration programs targeting immigrants, including its attempts to institute a travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries, could rule this summer.

Meanwhile, a separate judge in New York also ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA. That case will go through the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Once those courts rule, the Department of Justice could appeal to the Supreme Court.

“We’ve waited for too long on institutions of power to decide our fate.” Greisa Martinez, policy and advocacy director for United We Dream