Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Awarded Nobel Peace Prize for Nuclear Disarmament

[webfact]

Trump administration appeals 'Dreamer' immigrant ruling to top court

 

FILE PHOTO: People march across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest the planned dissolution of DACA in Manhattan, New York City, U.S. September 5, 2017. REUTERS/Stephen Yang

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday it had asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling last week that blocked President Donald Trump's move to end a programme that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

 

The Republican president in September rescinded, effective in March, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, programme put in place in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump asked Congress to come up with a legislative fix.

 

A variety of Democratic state attorneys general, organisations and individuals challenged Trump's action in multiple federal courts.

 

The administration is challenging a Jan. 9 decision by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who ruled that DACA must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.

 

The Justice Department is not filing an emergency application that, if successful, would result in the judge's ruling being put on hold. That means the programme will remain in effect during the litigation.

 

"It defies both law and common sense for DACA ... to somehow be mandated nationwide by a single district court in San Francisco," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Tuesday announcing plans for the appeal to the high court.

 

"We are now taking the rare step of requesting direct review on the merits of this injunction by the Supreme Court so that

this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved," Sessions added.

 

Since the programme was implemented, about 800,000 young, mostly Hispanic adults dubbed "Dreamers," have been protected from deportation and allowed to work legally in the United States. As of September, when the most recent figures were made available, 690,000 young adults were protected under the programme.

 

"Dreamers came out of the shadows based on a representation that if they qualified for the status, they would be allowed to stay in the country. Now they're being used as bargaining chips in a high-stakes immigration policy debate in which their status should have no part," said Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for the public interest law firm Public Counsel, which represents six DACA recipients in the case.

 

Alsup's ruling came during negotiations between Trump and congressional leaders over immigration policy. Those talks fell apart after Trump rejected a bipartisan deal and provoked outrage with his reported use of vulgar language to describe African countries in a meeting with lawmakers on immigration.

 

The Justice Department's move to go directly to the Supreme Court is unusual as the administration is essentially seeking to circumvent the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously ruled against it over Trump's temporary travel bans on people entering the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries.

 

Even if the high court agrees to take up the case, it is unlikely to rule until its next term, which starts in October and runs until June 2019.

 

(Reporting by Eric Walsh; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Dan Levine; Editing by Sandra Maler and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-19

[khwaibah]

This appeal to SCOTUS is a no brainer. The decision by SCOTUS is another question.

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, khwaibah said:

This appeal to SCOTUS is a no brainer. The decision by SCOTUS is another question.

"Even if the high court agrees to take up the case, it is unlikely to rule until its next term, which starts in October and runs until June 2019." Yes, you are correct, this move was a "no brainer" as brains were not involved in thinking things out. Hmmm, unless the move was purely for political consumption by those who did not consder that no change would be made until the new SCOTUS term?

[Jonnapat]

Supreme Court, conservative majority, verdict can be easily guessed advance.