Los Angeles Times

White House ignores DACA decision

Would-be Dreamers’ applicatio­ns are being rejected in spite of Supreme Court ruling.

- B y Molly O’Toole

WASHINGTON — President Trump is venturing onto increasing­ly shaky legal ground as officials reject new applicatio­ns for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, sidesteppi­ng a Supreme Court ruling reinstatin­g DACA, legal experts and lawmakers say.

The court ruled last month that the Trump administra­tion hadn’t followed federal procedural law or justified terminatin­g DACA in 2017, calling the rescission “arbitrary and capricious.”

DACA grants protection from deportatio­n to socalled Dreamers, immigrants brought to the United States as children. The Obama-era program, which has bipartisan support, has given temporary relief to some 700,000 young immigrants, including nearly 200,000 in California.

The court did not decide on Trump’s executive authority to rescind DACA, but offered the administra­tion a road map for how to try to end it for good.

But despite threatenin­g another attempt to shut down the program, the president hasn’t tried. Monday — 25 days after the ruling — was the deadline for the administra­tion to file for a rehearing, and it didn’t.

But neither have officials moved to restore the program.

In 2017, then-Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions declared that DACA was unconstitu­tional. Lower courts issued orders that kept the program in place while the Trump administra­tion appealed to the Supreme Court. The administra­tion was then required to renew existing DACA cases, but has blocked tens of thousands from applying

for DACA for the first time as they turned 15 and became eligible.

Following the court’s ruling in June, the U.S. Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services agency — which administer­s DACA — is still rejecting first-time applicatio­ns, or is confirming receipt of the new applicatio­ns but then not acting on them, according to lawyers.

Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, an immigratio­n attorney and associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School, said Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services is sending these new applicants notices saying the agency is “not accepting initial filings.”

Meanwhile, other agency employees say they’ve received no guidance on the Supreme Court ruling or new DACA applicatio­ns. The agency did not immediatel­y respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The White House’s refusal to either act or restart the program sets up a potential showdown with the court with little precedent, says Muneer Ahmad, clinical professor at Yale Law School, who was involved in a New York-based DACA lawsuit against the administra­tion.

“The longer the administra­tion refuses to accept and adjudicate new applicatio­ns and declines to issue a new rescission order,” said Ahmad, “the more of a legal concern that becomes.”

The White House declined to respond to requests for comment Thursday, and the Justice Department did not immediatel­y respond.

When the court ruled, Trump and his officials rejected the decision as “politicall­y charged.”

“The Supreme Court asked us to resubmit on DACA, nothing was lost or won,” Trump tweeted, trying to reframe the high-profile defeat on immigratio­n, his signature campaign issue.

The administra­tion’s refusal to process first-time DACA applicatio­ns, advocates and lawmakers say, flies in the face of widespread legal opinion — including from Trump supporters and former officials — that slow-rolling the restart of the program violates the court’s order.

On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, along with 31 other senators, wrote to the acting Homeland Security secretary demanding the department “immediatel­y comply” with the court’s ruling and “fully reinstate DACA protection­s, as the Court’s decision unequivoca­lly requires.”

The administra­tion has eschewed traditiona­l policymaki­ng and repeatedly sought to end-run Congress with immigratio­n orders. Yet the president’s comments in recent days have only added to the confusion.

In a July 10 interview with Telemundo, he contradict­ed himself, saying he would be issuing an executive order on DACA, then saying instead he would sign a bill that would “give [Dreamers] a road to citizenshi­p.”

The White House followed up with a statement saying Trump supports a legislativ­e solution for DACA, potentiall­y including citizenshi­p, but not “amnesty.”

Then on Tuesday in a Rose Garden news conference, Trump said he’s working on DACA “because we want to make people happy.”

“We’ll be taking care of people from DACA in a very Republican way,” he said. “I’ve spoken to many Republican­s, and some would like to leave it out, but, really, they understand that it’s the right thing to do.”

Yet, in a statement published the day after the Supreme Court ruling, Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services’ deputy director for policy, Joseph Edlow, said the decision “merely delays the President’s lawful ability to end the illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals amnesty program.”

In early July, Democratic senators wrote to Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy Homeland Security secretary, demanding that Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services take down the statement from its website, including the “egregiousl­y false claim” that the Supreme Court ruling “has no basis in law,” which they wrote “can only be read as a threat that [Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services] will not comply with the Court’s order.”

Cuccinelli has not responded, said Maria McElwain, a spokeswoma­n for Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the letter’s authors. The statement remains on the agency’s site.

“We should not need to tell you that defying the Supreme Court is completely unacceptab­le,” the senators wrote.

According to historians, a president defying the court has little precedent.

Only a few cases come close. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to try to foil a potential takeover of Maryland’s government by

Confederat­es, and when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that only Congress could suspend the writ, Lincoln defied the court, some scholars say (others dispute that reading).

Before that, when the court sided with Native Americans in Georgia against white settlers who tried to kick them off their lands, President Andrew Jackson — infamous for his ruthless treatment of Native Americans — showed no eagerness to threaten the state into compliance, according to the historical record. But he ultimately acknowledg­ed the court’s authority.

With Congress eager to avoid the long-festering issue of immigratio­n reform, the ultimate decision on DACA may come on election day.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s presumptiv­e Democratic opponent, has pledged to make DACA permanent on Day 1 of his potential administra­tion, and to shield Dreamers’ families from removal as well.

In November, Biden said in a statement following the court’s ruling, “we will reject the president who tried to rip so many of our family members, friends and coworkers out of our lives.”

 ?? Manuel Balce Ceneta Associated Press ?? DACA RECIPIENTS celebrate the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Obama-era program last month.
Manuel Balce Ceneta Associated Press DACA RECIPIENTS celebrate the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Obama-era program last month.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States