The Supreme Court is Reviewing DACA—What Does This Mean?

The latest Supreme Court review of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative threatens the temporary legal status of around 700,000 undocumented immigrants in the United States (Liptak). DACA is an American immigration policy that prohibits the deportation of illegal immigrant children who apply for a work permit. Specifically, those who were brought to the country under the age of 16 and pursue an education or military service are eligible for the program. In effect since it’s introduction under the Obama administration in 2012, the program can be renewed every two years.

 The rise of the Trump administration in 2016 marked an era of conservatism towards immigration among Republicans who are attempting to undo Obama’s lenient immigration policies. Trump announced DACA would be terminated in September of 2017, but it was only this past summer that the U.S Government filed a brief requesting the lawful termination of the program. The administration's grounds for appeal is their argument that to extend or maintain DACA is an unconstitutional reach of executive power. Meanwhile, the lower courts who have historically shielded immigrants under this policy, believe that the effort to terminate the program is “arbitrary and capricious” based on the Administrative Procedure Act which “governs policy making procedures” (Vox). 

There is a general concern among supporters of DACA that the conservative majority Supreme Court will side with administration in their projected June 2020 ruling. Some outspoken justices like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have indicated their sympathy for the administration's grounds of repeal. For example, Roberts Jr. has already envisioned the the process of termination. In recent comments, he indicated that DACA might be unwinded in “measured steps” to make the transition process easier for the courts and undocumented immigrants. Unlike liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who are eager to dismiss the administration's argument, Justice Kavanaugh mentioned there was likely “careful considerations” made before the U.S government tried terminating DACA. Other liberal justices like Justice Soytomayor have vocalized their disapproval of the review, stating “This is not about the law. This is about our choice to destroy lives” (Liptak). With the lives of many at stake, it is still unclear what the U.S Supreme Court will decide in a ruling that will be massively consequential. However, there are many different routes that this review can take. 

 Currently, there are two points of contention: whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to review Trump’s decision and whether the Trump administration have sufficient warrants to their claims. If the Supreme Court decides it cannot review DACA, then the courts will not have the legal authority to terminate DACA. This means that unauthorized immigrants will have their files for renewal nullified if it is filed around the time that the Supreme Court releases their decision. The Trump administration could then  have the authority to terminate DACA. It may also mean that the lower courts, who typically advocate for the applications, have to pass it off to the Trump Administration to handle. Given the administration's restrictive agenda, this could cause mass denials of those who apply to become apart of the program. However, a future administration could bring back DACA and instate strong protections. If the court rules that the termination of DACA is lawful, the Trump administration will be able to rollback the program. It is uncertain whether they would recall work permits or allow recipients to stay until its expiration date. The best possible scenario for DACA recipients is if the Court decides they have both the jurisdiction to review the file and rule that it would be unlawful to terminate the program. We would have to see how this would play out under the Court’s decision, like if DACA recipients can request advance parole. 

With the lives of many at stake, it is still unclear what the U.S Supreme Court will decide in a ruling that will be massively consequential.

by ANDREA REIER