Immigration

Six DACA Recipients Sue the Trump Regime

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

In addition to lawsuits filed by 20 states, the University of California, and the District of Columbia, six recipients of deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program have filed their own lawsuit.

San Diego attorney Dulce Garcia, who is one of the six Dreamers, will present similar arguments in court.

via Reuters:

The legal claims in all of the cases, including Garcia‘s, are similar: that the Trump administration did not follow proper administrative procedure in rescinding DACA, and that making enforcement promises to a group of people, only to revoke them, violates due process.

The Trump administration has said it is ending DACA because Obama overstepped his constitutional authority when he bypassed Congress and created the DACA program unilaterally.

It's important to note that DACA was never declared unconstitutional.

A collection of states led by Texas signed a letter declaring to their intent to challenge the constitutionality of DACA if it wasn't rescinded, but they never did and I don't believe they were ever going to. These states originally declared their intent to sue while President Obama was still in office and they never followed through.

It seems reasonable to think they never would have followed through on their threats even if Trump decided to maintain the program. The truth is the group of states led by Texas benefit greatly from immigrant labor and tax dollars and if they truly believe the program is unconstitutional, they should have challenged it right away.

The same could be said for the Trump regime. If they really believe it's unconstitutional, why is the program technically still in place? DACA recipients have until October 5th to file for renewal and the word is that deadline may be extended.

Does that sound like an unconstitutional program to you?

  • I spent a couple of hours going round and round with a Trump supporter on Twitter who insisted DACA was unconstitutional. The guy was so stupid–he couldn’t understand the difference between his believing something was unconstitutional versus it actually being declared unconstitutional by the courts. And when I brought up the difference between a “law” and an Executive Order, which has the “force of law”—well that blew his mind. The stoopid hurts.

    • ninjaf

      I don’t mind a “layman” not understanding their government and the semantics of it all and how it works. But this willingness to remain willfully ignorant is what I find most frustrating.

      • David Greenberg

        You are not dealing with people with full decks here. They think Dump is an appropriate POTUS. That says it all. Trying to reason with all but the brightest few is truly a waste of time.

  • Aynwrong

    It wouldn’t surprise me if all these states ever intended with the threat of a constitutional challenge to DACA was nothing more than racist kabuki theater but given that the entire GOP seems to be devolving into a neo-confederate junta, I wouldn’t put it past them.

    • Exactly, if they simply declared their intention to fight it and say publicly that they thought it was unconstitutional that satisfied their base enough and then those yahoos would run around and declare it so.

      • ninjaf

        A significant portion of their base has shown time and again that this is, in fact, really all they need to be mollified.

  • muselet

    Obviously, the Trump administration and the states that signed onto Texas’s silly letter are, first and foremost, out to erase another part of Barack Obama’s legacy.

    That may not happen. Not for a while, anyway.

    Federal District courts seem to look at the behavior of the parties in matters like this, as well as their briefs; the Trump administration has made such a dog’s breakfast of its approach to DACA (“it’s unconstitutional,” “it’s up to Congress,” “I’ll revisit it if Congress doesn’t act,” “deport everyone,” “who would want to deport educated people with jobs?” &c) that it provides no guidance. The first round(s) of lawsuits may very well go the DREAMers’ way.

    What happens if all these cases are consolidated, or when the inevitable appeals push the cases to the Circuit level, or when the inevitable appeals reach the Supreme Court is, at this point, unknowable.

    –alopecia