-
Recent Posts
- Election Security
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Two — Prime Time Hour One (8:00 to 8:59 p.m. Eastern)
- Exit Polls and Projections
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Colorado Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
- Election Security
- Election Night Preview — Part Six (Post-Midnight Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
Recent Comments
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: DACA
DACA
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) case. There were four basic issues in this case, and the Supreme Court addressed three of them directly. There was some language that indirectly discussed the fourth issue, but no ultimate decision. There were three basic groups of votes — two groups of four and a group of one. As expected, the opinion was written by the Chief Justice.
By way of background, DACA was an Obama-administration program which allowed some individuals who had been brought here illegally as children to apply for deferral of removal for a set period. One of the benefits of participating in this program was that these immigrants would also gain the right to legally work in the U.S. Before the end of the Obama Administration, an equivalent program was established for parents (DAPA), but the Republicans managed to get a federal district court in Texas and the Fifth Circuit to block that program, and the Trump Administration withdrew the program. Part of the complaints had to deal with the work authorization, and the Trump Department of Justice believed that DACA had the same flaw. As a result, the Trump Department of Homeland Security announced the end of DACA with a wind-down period established (no new application and a limited period in which participants could renew their deferrals). Cases were then filed challenging this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (which governs the process of making administrative decisions) and also alleging other flaws in the decision including claims that the decision was motivated by an intent to discriminate against Latinx.
The first issue was a jurisdictional threshold question — was the decision on DACA reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that discretionary policies are not reviewable. While there is a discretionary exception, the Supreme Court found that — in most circumstances — that exception is limited to discretion exercised in an individual case rather than the discretionary decision to establish or end a program. The Supreme Court found that, while the result of DACA might be individual decisions in individual cases (which would otherwise be discretionary under immigration law), the establishment of a program creating a procedure to seek those individual decisions was subject to review under the APA. This part of the decision may prove to be big going forward, but it will apply to both executive decisions that are conservative and executive decisions that are progressive.
Roberts’s World
We are entering what would normally be the home stretch of the annual Supreme Court term. And it is becoming relatively clear that most of the major opinions for this term will be coming from Chief Justice John Roberts.
As we have noted in past end-of-term posts, the U.S. Supreme Court attempts to balance the number of lead opinions that each chamber has. This balancing occurs in two ways: within each monthly two-week argument session and over the entire term. For example, if there are ten cases argued during a given month, one justice will be assigned two cases and the other justices will be assigned one case each. And a justice who gets two cases in one month will probably one get one case the next month.
By this time of the term, we usually have enough opinions issued to have a sense (not 100% certain because it is possible that a 5-4 case may flip after the first draft of the tentative majority opinion and the tentative dissent are circulated) of who probably has the case. This year, we have almost all of the cases from October, November, and January and all of the cases from December. While we only have about half of the cases from February (and obviously none from May), the look from the first four arguments is somewhat conclusive.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Free Exercise Clause, LGBTQ rights, Title VIII
Comments Off on Roberts’s World
The Future of DACA
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the validity of President Trump’s “decision” to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program established under President Obama. The program — limited to those brought here as children who meet certain criteria — assures participants that they will not be deported and gives them some legal rights. President Trump — rather due to his opposition to immigrants from Latin America or his hatred for anything that President Obama accomplished — decided to terminate this program, thereby subjecting individuals who were brought here as children without proper documentation to deportation at any time that they are found by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency regardless of what they have done while living in the United States (either good or bad). Various individual and agencies filed suits challenging this decision, and they prevailed in the lower courts. The Supreme Court decided to hear three of these cases (consolidated into one argument).
Before going into the issues, it is important to note one complicating factor in this case. Before the end of his administration, President Obama tried to create a companion program (DAPA) that would potentially have covered the parents of the participants in DACA. That expansion was blocked in the trial court and by the Fifth Circuit (the appellate court that includes Texas). The Supreme Court took that case, but — after oral argument — Justice Scalia died. That left a 4-4 split on the DAPA case which means that the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit without opinion as an “equally divided court.” Because there was no opinion, there is no guidance on any of the relevant legal issues. That absence cuts both ways in the current case.
The Trump Administration has two basic arguments. First, they argue that DACA falls within the “discretionary enforcement” part of executive branch authority. Stripped of legal jargon, agencies have limited resources. As such, they have to make decisions about enforcement priorities and these decisions are generally not reviewable. For example, a state prosecutor’s office in an urban area may decide that it lacks the resources to vigorously prosecute violent felonies and, therefore, decline to file routine misdemeanors believing that it would be a better use of state resources to let city prosecutors handle those matters in city court.
Supreme Court Term Preview — October 2019 (Part II)
As noted in the first part of this series, the highlights of the four-day October argument session are full days devoted to whether the term “sex” in Title VII includes sexual orientation (which might also lead to similar interpretations for other provisions barring discrimination in contexts other than employment) and to the board managing Puerto Rico’s financial issues. With Veteran’s Day falling on a Monday this year, the November session will only have five argument days — the highlight of which will be DACA day.
DACA is not the only immigration issue in the November argument session. The first case to be heard in that session in November 4 — Barton vs. Barr is also an immigration case. That case involves the rules governing deportation. Overly simplified, certain conduct authorize deportation. However, an immigration judge can decide to cancel deportation under some circumstances. One of those circumstances is that the immigrant has been a permanent resident for at least five years and has continuously resided in the United States for seven years. However, for purposes of calculating that time period, that time stops when the immigrant commits an offense that would render them inadmissible. The issue presented in Barton is whether a person who is not seeking admission can be rendered inadmissible. (The paragraph governing “time stops” applies to both the provisions governing lawful permanent residents — who do not need to seek admission — and other immigrants like visa holders who do need to seek admission. That same paragraph also stops the clock from running if the immigrant commits an offense that renders them removable — a concept that would apply to both lawful permanent residents and to visa holders.) There is a logical argument for reading the paragraph in both ways, and this case will give a hint about how strictly this Court will read current immigration laws.
The other case on November 4 is a criminal law — Kansas v. Glover — case involving “reasonable suspicion.” To grossly simplify matters, law enforcement can detain somebody for a brief period to investigate possible criminal activity including traffic offenses if they have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is being committed. A reasonable suspicion is basically objective reason(s) that lead the officer to believe that a crime might be in progress. Here, the exact issue is whether the fact that the owner of a motor vehicle has a suspended license is a sufficient reason to justify stopping that vehicle to see if the owner is driving. (In this case, the owner was driving, but the issue is not whether the officer was right. Instead, the issue is whether the inference that the owner was driving is a reasonable inference for the officer to make.) As you may have noticed, this case is the third criminal law-related case coming from Kansas. The vast majority of the cases heard by the Supreme Court come from the federal courts. Last year, the Supreme Court only took ten cases from state appellate courts, and — depending upon how you characterize some of the cases — only six involved criminal-law related issues. For the Supreme Court to grant certiorari on three appeals from the same state in the same term is highly unusual and rarely happens even for larger states like Texas and California. For a small state like Kansas, that is highly unusual. On the other hand, Kansas has been gaining a reputation for loosely applying prior Supreme Court decisions (mostly in cases in which the Kansas Supreme Court has found that something about the state’s death penalty system violates the federal constitution), and Kansas has been involved in at least three major Supreme Court cases over the past twenty years.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Administrative Procedures Act, Clean Waters Act, Environment, Immigration, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Term Preview — October 2019 (Part II)