Supreme Court Rejects Trump Effort To End DACA

TRUMP TOWER, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2017/10/05: The Asian American Federation partnered with leading immigrant advocacy groups in New York to hold the Asian-American Dreamer rally outside Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 5, 2017; to defend the future of DACA, and in support of Asian-American DACA recipients who are being impacted by the dissolution of the DACA program under the Trump administration. (Photo by Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
TRUMP TOWER, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2017/10/05: The Asian American Federation partnered with leading immigrant advocacy groups in New York to hold the Asian-American Dreamer rally outside Trump Tower in Manhattan ... TRUMP TOWER, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES - 2017/10/05: The Asian American Federation partnered with leading immigrant advocacy groups in New York to hold the Asian-American Dreamer rally outside Trump Tower in Manhattan on October 5, 2017; to defend the future of DACA, and in support of Asian-American DACA recipients who are being impacted by the dissolution of the DACA program under the Trump administration. (Photo by Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
June 18, 2020 10:08 a.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, a stunning rebuke to the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.

The outcome seems certain to elevate the issue in Trump’s campaign, given the anti-immigrant rhetoric of his first presidential run in 2016 and immigration restrictions his administration has imposed since then.

The justices rejected administration arguments that the 8-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program is illegal and that courts have no role to play in reviewing the decision to end DACA.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the administration did not pursue the end of the program properly.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,“ Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”

The Department of Homeland Security can try again, he wrote.

Introducing
The TPM Journalism Fund: A New Way To Support TPM
We're launching the TPM Journalism Fund as an additional way for readers and members to support TPM. Every dollar contributed goes toward:
  • -Hiring More Journalists
  • -Providing free memberships to those who cannot afford them
  • -Supporting independent, non-corporate journalism
Are you experiencing financial hardship?
Apply for a free community-supported membership
Comments
advertisement
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer:
SPECIAL DEAL FOR PAST TPM MEMBERS
40% OFF AN ANNUAL PRIME MEMBERSHIP
REJOIN FOR JUST $30