Jewish legal experts weigh in on DACA decision
A June 20 Supreme Court decision invalidates the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). For now, these immigrants — the “dreamers” — have retained the protections of DACA. Five years later, on Sept. 5, 2017, Elaine Duke, acting secretary of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, issued a memorandum that “terminated the program.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Duke provided insufficient explanation for terminating the program. Duke’s successor as secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, then provided additional reasoning for rescinding DACA. On June 20, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, ruled that the efforts to end DACA were still “arbitrary and capricious,” and so DACA remains in force. Tim Moran, senior lecturer at the Irvin D. Reid Honors College of Wayne State University, cautions that “when the Supreme Court issues an opinion, it’s not because they ‘side with’ any particular issue. They examine the law and decide whether the law has been followed correctly.” The majority of the court decided the case as a narrow question of the Administrative Procedures Act. The executive cannot simply overturn an administrative rule without providing a sufficient rationale. Justice Roberts, joined by the liberal justices, found that Duke’s memorandum offered an “arbitrary and capricious” rationale, and that Nielsen’s later additions could not remedy that original lack. The decision, however, rests on a procedural question. Robert Sedler, professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University Law School, notes that Chief Justice Roberts here follows “the operative principle: Decide cases on the narrowest possible ground.”