ShareThis Page
World

Appeals court rules against Trump on DACA immigrant policy

| Thursday, Nov. 8, 2018, 2:18 p.m.
President Donald Trump arrives for a ceremony for new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Supreme Court, in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 8, 2018.
President Donald Trump arrives for a ceremony for new Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Supreme Court, in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 8, 2018.

SAN FRANCISCO — A U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump cannot immediately end an Obama-era program shielding young immigrants from deportation.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept in place a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s decision to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Lawsuits by California and others challenging the administration’s decision will continue in federal court while the injunction remains in place.

DACA has protected some 700,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families that overstayed visas.

The Trump administration has said it moved to end the program last year because Texas and other states threatened to sue, raising the prospect of a chaotic end to DACA.

The decision prompted lawsuits across the nation, including one by California. A judge overseeing that lawsuit and four others ruled against the administration and reinstated the program in January.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup rejected the argument that then-President Barack Obama had exceeded his power in creating DACA and said the Trump administration failed to consider the disruption that ending the program would cause.

The Trump administration then asked the 9th Circuit to throw out Alsup’s ruling.

During a hearing in May, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan argued that the courts could not review the administration’s decision to end DACA and defended the move against assertions that it was arbitrary and capricious.

“It’s a question of an agency saying, ‘We’re not going to have a policy that might well be illegal,’” Mooppan told the judges. “That is a perfectly rational thing to do.”

Mooppan said the administration was under no obligation to consider the fact that people had come to rely on DACA.

The judges on the 9th Circuit panel appeared skeptical of the argument that the DACA decision was beyond the court’s authority to review.

Judge Kim Wardlaw noted at the hearing that another appeals court had reviewed a similar Obama administration immigration policy.

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen questioned whether courts could intervene if they thought DACA was legal and disagreed with the administration’s position that it wasn’t.

The administration has been critical of the 9th Circuit and took the unusual step of trying to sidestep it and have the California DACA cases heard directly by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court in February declined to do so.

Federal judges in New York and Washington also have ruled against Trump on DACA.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me