US Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Administration Efforts to Dismantle DACA

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The Supreme Court in the case of Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California, ruled 5-4 majority. The decision comes as a saving for almost 700,000 individuals. Trump administration cannot force removal of “the dreamers”.

Background

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a program which protects unauthorized individuals who arrived to the United States as children. This was an initiative during the time of former president Barack Obama. It protected against the deportation of around 700,000 undocumented immigrants. These individuals became eligible for work authorization and other federal benefits. The Attorney General concluded these programs to be unlawful, in the year 2017. The Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security took cognisance of it. She issued a memorandum in response. The order terminated the program. Hence, the affected individuals challenged the termination.

Government’s Argument

The Government argued that the claims were un-reviewable under the APA. Thus, depriving the Courts of jurisdiction. However, all the Courts rejected these claims. The government contended that 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authorization. That they are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Moreover, there should be protection and regulation for access to such benefits. The respondents defended the decision taken by the Acting Secretary. The Section 1103(a)(1) states, determinations of the Attorney General “will be controlling.” Thus, she was bound by the Attorney General’s legal determination.

DACA recipients have no “legally cognizable reliance interests”. This is in the Government’s view, shared by the lead dissent. The DACA Memorandum stated that the program “conferred no substantive rights”. Also it provided benefits only in two-year increments.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner argued that the Acting Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Her decision did not consider major factors and implications. It was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It infringed the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. There were nationwide preliminary injunctions. It did not need DHS to accept new applications. But, did order the agency to allow DACA recipients to “renew their enrolments.”

Court’s Opinion

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Four other liberal judges backed him. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, the justifications given by the government was insufficient. He held them to be “arbitrary and capricious”. He also held that the administration should find adequate reasons for the same. The decision was purely based on the procedural irregularities. The Trump Administration may correct these irregularities. The Court’s decision is not a permanent solution but a temporary halt. The DACA itself allowed a two-year renewal. There was no pathway to citizenship through DACA. The administration has been asked for providing adequate reasoning. The status of the judgment might take a drastic change. This will take place once the administration provides for the reasons.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that Trump administration cannot immediately shut down the DACA program. It also allowed for the work permit for these 700,000 individuals.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -