Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s Decision to End DACA: Here’s What Both Sides is Saying

Robert Brooks Contributor
Supreme Court Overturns Trump’s Decision to End DACA: Here’s What Both Sides is Saying
Read Time: approx. 1:58

Dream On: the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration cannot immediately end the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program. DACA, as the program is known, allows people brought to the United States as children to apply for a temporary status protecting them from deportation and permitting them to work. The status lasts for two years and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship. In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members to author the opinion, the Supreme court said the Department of Homeland Security’s move to eliminate the program was done in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself. Here is what each side is saying about the high court’s ruling:

On the rightJoel Pollack of Breitbart writes that, “Conservatives have long believed that DACA was unconstitutional, because it circumvented the legislature and applied the administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion to an absurdly large number of potential defendants (2 million).” In 2017, when Jeff Sessions was Attorney General, he declared DACA was unconstitutional, representing “an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” This belief was transcribed by dissenting members of the Supreme Court including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, who wrote that DACA was illegal from its inception. “Under the auspices of [the] decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda,” Thomas wrote. Thursday’s decision did not sit well with President Trump who tweeted, “These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!”

On the Left: Elise Foley writes for the Huffington Post that Trump and Republicans’ argument that former President Barack Obama had overstepped his authority in creating DACA is hypocritical. Foley says that, “like his predecessor, Trump has taken executive actions on immigration without congressional approval. Early in his presidency, Trump barred people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the country [and in] April of this year, Trump issued another order limiting legal immigration, claiming that the coronavirus pandemic and related economic slowdown necessitated it.” More broadly, Foley points out that DACA “allowed [the recipients] to find better jobs, increase their earnings and get driver’s licenses. They pay taxes and buy homes. Some have children who are U.S. citizens. An estimated 29,000 DACA recipients are working in health care, some of them on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.” Ali Noorani states in a Fox News opinion piece that “Simply Put [the ruling] is great news for the United States.” Noorani ends with a question: “Will our elected officials heed the call of the 85 percent of Americans who favor allowing Dreamers to stay in the U.S. legally — including 73 percent of Republicans?”

Flag ThisAs Brent Kendall, Jess Bravin and Michelle Hackman point out for the Wall Street Journal, “The ruling hands President Trump one of the biggest legal defeats of his presidency, and in the middle of an election year in which immigration is again a top political topic.” Moreover, the opinion is the second time in a week the Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration, despite having two of President Donald Trump’s nominees. Monday, the court said LGBTQ Americans are protected under the Civil Rights Act. Zooming out, the ruling still leaves DACA recipients in limbo. Now Trump administration officials will have to provide a lower court with a more robust justification for ending the program. That process is likely to take months, delaying any movement on the program until well after the November election.