U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Effort to Terminate DACA, Protecting 700,000 from Deportation
(Chief Justice Roberts Writes Majority Opinion in 5-4 Ruling)
CLEVELAND – June 18, 2020 – Today, in a 29-page opinion, after years of federal court litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s 2017 effort to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, protecting approximately 700,000 DACA recipients from deportation and allowing them to continue to live and work in the U.S.
Herman Legal Group, an immigration law firm headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio with offices throughout the U.S., applauds this decision, which was anxiously anticipated by millions of people, including DACA recipients, their family members, future DACA recipients, as well as immigration reform activists around the country.
This decision by the Court further strengthens the U.S. economy, as well as the promise of the American Dream. Research demonstrates that 94% of DACA recipients are employed, paid $5.9 billion in taxes in 2018, and include 45,000 entrepreneurs. DACA-eligible immigrants are crucial to the fight against COVID-19: 542,000 are essential workers, with 62,000 in healthcare and 480,000 in other frontline work.
Richard Herman, an immigration reform activist, the co-author of the book, Immigrant, Inc., and the founder of the Herman Legal Group, believes DACA is still in danger of termination in the future:
“The Court’s decision was based on procedural — not policy— grounds, and the Trump Administration will almost certainly make efforts to articulate a new rationale for termination of DACA that may survive federal court scrutiny.”
Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in a 5-4 ruling, said that the Department of Homeland Security’s 2017 “decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.” He also stated that DHS did not adequately consider the hardships and impact on DACA recipients, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an accompanying opinion, took issue with the majority opinion finding that Trump’s decision to end DACA was not “motivated by animus.” Trump had made DACA and immigration a key issue for his campaign in 2015. Trump specifically targeted Mexican people, referring to Mexicans who come to the U.S. as “criminals, drug dealers….and rapists.”
In analyzing the Court’s decision, Richard Herman, states the following:
“DACA survives for now, based on the Supreme Court’s holding that the Trump Administration was reckless and unreasonable in how it attempted to terminate the program; DACA should reset to its original mandate in 2012 and NEW DACA applications must be accepted; and Trump Administration will likely try to end DACA again, based on new rationale that might survive constitutional scrutiny. What is really needed, however, is comprehensive immigration law reform to provide permanent legal protections and a path to citizenship.”
