Supreme Court DENIES Trump request on DACA

DACA, which the Trump administration as tried to dismantle, still lives thanks several lower courts that blocked the program’s demise. Since then Trump administration attorneys has sought to fast-track the case, but today the Supreme Court denied their motion:

CBS NEWS – The Supreme Court on Monday denied a recent request by the Trump administration for the court to quickly decide if it will hear oral arguments in a protracted legal battle over President Trump’s move to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shields hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The one-sentence order by the conservative-leaning court thwarted a request made by the Justice Department late last month and is likely to prolong the nearly two-year court fight over the fate of the Obama-era program — which has been kept alive by several lower court rulings despite the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate it.



Remember the first court that blocked Trump’s actions on DACA was in early January 2018. After that the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

Since then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in the fall of 2017 that the administration would move to gradually dismantle the program, four federal circuit courts have issued injunctions — one as recently as last month — blocking the government from dismantling the program. Late last year, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.

I’m a little surprised that the Supreme Court didn’t agree to fast-track the oral arguments since they did take up the case earlier than they normally would. Trump’s team wanted to argue the DACA case during the fall term, but that’s clearly not going to happen now. I’m not sure when the Supreme Court will hear arguments on it, but it might not be 2020 if I’m reading this right.

CBS News reports that while the program does still live, the Trump administration isn’t accepting new DACA applications.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

108 thoughts on “Supreme Court DENIES Trump request on DACA

  1. Oh come on! This is low hanging fruit for SCOTUS, not to mention more important than most of their Mickey Mouse cases! Just ask one simple question, can the executive branch make new immigration law? NOPE! Then throw DACA out and side with Trump Admin! Shouldn’t take them 5 mins to decide

  2. This is pathetic. Not only was DACA, and Obama’s implementation of it, wholly illegal to begin with, but this falls squarely under the category of foreign policy, which is the exclusive domain of the executive branch. The courts should have no say in it whatsoever, and Trump should be telling them to pound sand.

    Instead, he bows, scrapes and begs them to rule in his favor, and when they don’t, he gives up.

    1. Wait I’m confused . . . If it falls squarely under the category of foreign policy, which is the exclusive domain of the executive branch, then how could have Obama’s implementation of DACA been illegal?

  3. This is how the Courts rule and wield their power without even ruling on a case. Trump should just do what he wants to do and to hell with the bastards on the court.

      1. A lot of “Republican” Presidents always go with the “safe” pick. I think Trump’s different.

        1. I shall withhold judgement. Trump could still be a 1 term President and the old bag RBG may survive him.

  4. I don’t get it. DACA was created through executive order so I don’t understand why it can’t be ended the same way. Doesn’t it have to be renewed? If so, why not let it expire and refuse to renew it?

    1. @kong1967 You’re correct. It should be able to be ended the way it was created. Unfortunately we have a bunch of liberal activist judges who would rule against anything that supported the American people rather than illegal alien invaders. Apparently SCOTUS ranks right up there with them.

      1. @bikerhoop The Supreme Court ranks up there with them in-so-far as not allowing it to be fast tracked. Maybe they didn’t want the ruling to come out just before the elections and look politically motivated.

    2. @kong1967 It was ended for new applications. The complexity is how to handle those already in the system and I guess thats what the lawsuit is about.

      1. @abe-lincoln The recipients have to apply every two years, so I’d be ok with letting them finish out the agreement we made with them. Just don’t renew it again.

    3. It can be ended, but the Trump Administration needs to adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to do so. Instead, it attempted a legal “short cut” by simply asserting that the original executive decision was not legal and, therefore, that it had no choice but to rescind it. In turn, that shifted the legal argument to whether the Administration’s legal premise was correct. If not, then its decision would be blocked.

      Toward that end, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling explained (underlining is mine):

      In an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, “[i]t is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983); see also, e.g., SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947) (Chenery II) (“[A] reviewing court . . . must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.” (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (Chenery I)).

      Similarly, it is black letter law that where an agency purports to act solely on the basis that a certain result is legally required, and that legal premise turns out to be incorrect, the action must be set aside, regardless of whether the action could have been justified as an exercise of discretion.

      The Administration was not able to prove the correctness of its assertion. Therefore, the Court ruled as it did in setting aside the Administration’s result, at least for now. Had it pursued rescission based on its exercising discretionary authority and in a fashion consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the outcome might well have been different.

      This is not the end of the matter. Additional related cases are also working through the judicial system, all of which may raise new legal issues. The Supreme Court may yet hear the case (possibly when some or all of the other cases are combined).

      In any case, that’s my read on the situation.

      1. @don-sutherland Thanks. Then maybe they can still follow the route that adheres to the Act. Being that this is going to be held up in the courts for a while is it possible to go ahead and do it that way now?

  5. This is a great example of judicial abuse because orange man bad or because Republican admin. DACA is an executive order subject to being negated by a new administration. It isn’t law, and there is no reason this admin cannot end it or make adjustments as they see fit.

  6. So then don’t dismantle it. EO a new interpretation for it.

    Deferred Action now means…. one hour of deferral. The order stays in place, young illegals still get the protection of deferred action, nothing whatsoever about DACA substantively changes.

    And then we stick them in the border catapult an hour later.

    1. @atomicsentinel Good idea, but I’m sure the courts will stop anything that messes with Obama’s legacy.

      1. That’s the joy of it. It’s not being messed with. The entire thing is basically a granting of prosecutorial discretion. We’re still allowing the discretion, just altering how long the deferral can last. We can even keep the provision about it being subject to renewal, and then point out how often we grant such renewals – often extending the deferrals to two, sometimes even three or four hours! How generous of us!

  7. So a president can create a directive out of thin air but the next president can’t change or end it? According to these zealots in the court system? How does that make sense?

  8. This is pathetic. Not only was DACA, and Obama’s implementation of it, wholly illegal to begin with, but this falls squarely under the category of foreign policy, which is the exclusive domain of the executive branch. The courts should have no say in it whatsoever, and Trump should be telling them to pound sand.

    Instead, he bows, scrapes and begs them to rule in his favor, and when they don’t, he gives up.

    1. Wait I’m confused . . . If it falls squarely under the category of foreign policy, which is the exclusive domain of the executive branch, then how could have Obama’s implementation of DACA been illegal?

        1. LOL. You are arguing against yourself. If DACA is indeed in squarely under foreign policy and the exclusive domain of the executive branch, then the legal objections you raised do not apply.

  9. Oh come on! This is low hanging fruit for SCOTUS, not to mention more important than most of their Mickey Mouse cases! Just ask one simple question, can the executive branch make new immigration law? NOPE! Then throw DACA out and side with Trump Admin! Shouldn’t take them 5 mins to decide

  10. This is how the Courts rule and wield their power without even ruling on a case. Trump should just do what he wants to do and to hell with the bastards on the court.

  11. I’m thinking we’re going to be increasingly disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts

      1. A lot of “Republican” Presidents always go with the “safe” pick. I think Trump’s different.

        1. I shall withhold judgement. Trump could still be a 1 term President and the old bag RBG may survive him.

  12. I find this to be outrageous. But I’m ignorant in these legal matters… It just seems like they are prolonging an unconstitutional catastrophe – making it easier for illegals to stay.

    1. @muckjumper I’m no lawyer but this isn’t that hard to understand, and you’re entirely correct.

  13. For all the tough talk on Twitter, Trump tends to be too much of a squish when confronted on policy matters imo. He should have completely rescinded DACA and let the judge hold him in contempt of court which would’ve kicked the issue to Congress. The judiciary can’t constitutionally force a president to extend an EO from the previous administration, but Trump has fecklessly let this happen. This one’s on him!

  14. I don’t get it. DACA was created through executive order so I don’t understand why it can’t be ended the same way. Doesn’t it have to be renewed? If so, why not let it expire and refuse to renew it?

    1. @kong1967 You’re correct. It should be able to be ended the way it was created. Unfortunately we have a bunch of liberal activist judges who would rule against anything that supported the American people rather than illegal alien invaders. Apparently SCOTUS ranks right up there with them.

      1. @bikerhoop The Supreme Court ranks up there with them in-so-far as not allowing it to be fast tracked. Maybe they didn’t want the ruling to come out just before the elections and look politically motivated.

    2. It can be ended, but the Trump Administration needs to adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to do so. Instead, it attempted a legal “short cut” by simply asserting that the original executive decision was not legal and, therefore, that it had no choice but to rescind it. In turn, that shifted the legal argument to whether the Administration’s legal premise was correct. If not, then its decision would be blocked.

      Toward that end, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling explained (underlining is mine):

      In an arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, “[i]t is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983); see also, e.g., SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947) (Chenery II) (“[A] reviewing court . . . must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.” (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (Chenery I)).

      Similarly, it is black letter law that where an agency purports to act solely on the basis that a certain result is legally required, and that legal premise turns out to be incorrect, the action must be set aside, regardless of whether the action could have been justified as an exercise of discretion.

      The Administration was not able to prove the correctness of its assertion. Therefore, the Court ruled as it did in setting aside the Administration’s result, at least for now. Had it pursued rescission based on its exercising discretionary authority and in a fashion consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the outcome might well have been different.

      This is not the end of the matter. Additional related cases are also working through the judicial system, all of which may raise new legal issues. The Supreme Court may yet hear the case (possibly when some or all of the other cases are combined).

      In any case, that’s my read on the situation.

      1. @don-sutherland Thanks. Then maybe they can still follow the route that adheres to the Act. Being that this is going to be held up in the courts for a while is it possible to go ahead and do it that way now?

    3. @kong1967 It was ended for new applications. The complexity is how to handle those already in the system and I guess thats what the lawsuit is about.

      1. @abe-lincoln The recipients have to apply every two years, so I’d be ok with letting them finish out the agreement we made with them. Just don’t renew it again.

  15. DACA ISN’T “law”, it’s simply an EO which Trump has EVERY RIGHT to rescind. THIS is beyond ridiculous. Who has the authority to smack these guys down.

    1. @sam Barr himself said these lower courts are abusing their power and doing things they don’t have the power to do. I don’t get why nothing is done about it.

      1. @kong1967
        Well then I’d actually like Trump (or should it be Barr or both) to address the nation with a “short” WELL WRITTEN statement In plain language explaining what’s happening & why he’s addressing it because SOMEONE has to challenge this overreach.

        ……..as YOUR President, I swore to uphold the laws of the United States & do what’s best for AMERICAN citizens. This previous EO is NOT a Law enacted by Congress. Congress are the only branch Of Government who can write LAWS.
        DACA was an EO granting non-citizens rights reserved for YOU…AMERICAN citizens.
        The judicial branch has NO SAY in this matter, therefore I am issuing an EO Rescinding the DACA EO, etc, etc

        1. @sam I had it explained to me and now I understand what they are basing it on. Apparently because Trump didn’t follow the correct procedure for killing executive orders. The Administrative Procedure Act. Trump is taking the route that it’s not a legal executive order so (I guess) they shouldn’t have to go through those procedures. Since this is going to be tied up in courts maybe he will go that route now…hard telling.

          I think Trump is taking the correct route. It most definitely wasn’t a legal executive order so that Act should not apply. But you know as well as I do the leftist courts will block it either way he goes.

          1. @kong1967
            Ok, but as far as I’m concerned he should still give a speech & explain why EVERYTHING is held up & NOTHING is happening. He actually does well when he speaks & explains what is going on. None of the sarcasm, put downs, I’m greater than everyone else, etc. When he speaks genuine & from the heart, he wins. Hell, even I like him then!

            1. @sam He probably should explain, but I’m sure he’ll address it in one way or another.

              Trump usually only talks that way when he gets provoked or if he’s getting opposition from the nutballs.

              I agree that he does a much better job when he focuses on the issue at hand, but at the same time I enjoy when he goes after the nutballs like Pelosi and AOC….others like that…that don’t have legitimate cases or if they’re attacking him in a rude way.

  16. So then don’t dismantle it. EO a new interpretation for it.

    Deferred Action now means…. one hour of deferral. The order stays in place, young illegals still get the protection of deferred action, nothing whatsoever about DACA substantively changes.

    And then we stick them in the border catapult an hour later.

    1. @atomicsentinel Good idea, but I’m sure the courts will stop anything that messes with Obama’s legacy.

      1. That’s the joy of it. It’s not being messed with. The entire thing is basically a granting of prosecutorial discretion. We’re still allowing the discretion, just altering how long the deferral can last. We can even keep the provision about it being subject to renewal, and then point out how often we grant such renewals – often extending the deferrals to two, sometimes even three or four hours! How generous of us!

  17. Left leaning Supreme Court judges except for just 2 of them. Big mistake by trump to select kavanaugh. A swamp Rino man

    1. @John
      I wanted Trump to nominate Amy Barrett for SCOTUS instead of Brett Kavanaugh.
      I bet he wishes he had listened to me now.

    1. That is my question. This isn’t an issue for the SC or Congress. It is clearly within the executive branch’s power to resend an executive order. What ever happened to separation of powers?

      1. Congress may pass legislation to invalidate an Executive Order but the Judiciary has NO business meddling in it.

    2. @ciceroni-excogitatoris Thank you. Now I don’t feel stupid for asking the same question. To me it smells like “how dare you dismantle Obama’s legacy!”

      1. @kong1967
        You’re right, K. This is about protecting Obama’s legacy, which is being dismantled by President Trump.

        1. @ciceroni-excogitatoris Which is probably another reason the left is so desperate to get him out of office even if it means (fraudulent) impeachment.

    3. re-Levin’s book “Men in Black” for starters and ” Liberty and Tyranny ” heck any of his books will do @ciceroni-excogitatoris

  18. So a president can create a directive out of thin air but the next president can’t change or end it? According to these zealots in the court system? How does that make sense?

      1. @dr-strangelove OT: You’re a “famed” member now, I see! 😎 :chuckle: :thumbsup:

        1. @sheerpolitics So I’ve heard! So many times, in fact, I’m all out of witty replies.

  19. This is a great example of judicial abuse because orange man bad or because Republican admin. DACA is an executive order subject to being negated by a new administration. It isn’t law, and there is no reason this admin cannot end it or make adjustments as they see fit.

  20. CBS News reports that while the program does still live, the Trump administration isn’t accepting new DACA applications.

    Is this why SCOTUS refused to stop the program? Because no new applications are being accepted, so the program is not growing any more?

  21. I find this to be outrageous. But I’m ignorant in these legal matters… It just seems like they are prolonging an unconstitutional catastrophe – making it easier for illegals to stay.

    1. @muckjumper I’m no lawyer but this isn’t that hard to understand, and you’re entirely correct.

  22. For all the tough talk on Twitter, Trump tends to be too much of a squish when confronted on policy matters imo. He should have completely rescinded DACA and let the judge hold him in contempt of court which would’ve kicked the issue to Congress. The judiciary can’t constitutionally force a president to extend an EO from the previous administration, but Trump has fecklessly let this happen. This one’s on him!

  23. DACA ISN’T “law”, it’s simply an EO which Trump has EVERY RIGHT to rescind. THIS is beyond ridiculous. Who has the authority to smack these guys down.

    1. @sam Barr himself said these lower courts are abusing their power and doing things they don’t have the power to do. I don’t get why nothing is done about it.

      1. @kong1967
        Well then I’d actually like Trump (or should it be Barr or both) to address the nation with a “short” WELL WRITTEN statement In plain language explaining what’s happening & why he’s addressing it because SOMEONE has to challenge this overreach.

        ……..as YOUR President, I swore to uphold the laws of the United States & do what’s best for AMERICAN citizens. This previous EO is NOT a Law enacted by Congress. Congress are the only branch Of Government who can write LAWS.
        DACA was an EO granting non-citizens rights reserved for YOU…AMERICAN citizens.
        The judicial branch has NO SAY in this matter, therefore I am issuing an EO Rescinding the DACA EO, etc, etc

        1. @sam I had it explained to me and now I understand what they are basing it on. Apparently because Trump didn’t follow the correct procedure for killing executive orders. The Administrative Procedure Act. Trump is taking the route that it’s not a legal executive order so (I guess) they shouldn’t have to go through those procedures. Since this is going to be tied up in courts maybe he will go that route now…hard telling.

          I think Trump is taking the correct route. It most definitely wasn’t a legal executive order so that Act should not apply. But you know as well as I do the leftist courts will block it either way he goes.

  24. Left leaning Supreme Court judges except for just 2 of them. Big mistake by trump to select kavanaugh. A swamp Rino man

    1. @John
      I wanted Trump to nominate Amy Barrett for SCOTUS instead of Brett Kavanaugh.
      I bet he wishes he had listened to me now.

    1. re-Levin’s book “Men in Black” for starters and ” Liberty and Tyranny ” heck any of his books will do @ciceroni-excogitatoris

  25. CBS News reports that while the program does still live, the Trump administration isn’t accepting new DACA applications.

    Is this why SCOTUS refused to stop the program? Because no new applications are being accepted, so the program is not growing any more?

Comments are closed.