Trump administration must accept new DACA applications, rules federal judge
Verdict marks third in recent months against government's rollback of Obama-era immigration policy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.In the biggest setback yet for the Trump administration in its attempt to end a programme that shields some young adults from deportation, a federal judge has ruled that the protections must stay in place and that the government must resume accepting new applications.
Judge John D Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said that the administration’s decision to terminate the programme, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), was based on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the programme was “unlawful”.
The judge stayed his decision for 90 days and gave the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for cancelling the programme. If the department fails to do so, it “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” Mr Bates wrote in his decision.
The ruling was the third in recent months against the Trump administration’s rollback of DACA. Federal judges in Brooklyn and in San Francisco each issued injunctions ordering that the programme remain in place. Neither of those decisions, however, required the government to accept new applications.
Mr Bates was nominated by then president George W Bush in 2001. He described the Trump administration’s decision to phase out DACA as “arbitrary and capricious because the department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the programme was unlawful”.
The Supreme Court in late February declined an unusual White House request that it immediately decide whether the Trump administration can shut down the programme. The Obama administration established the DACA programme based on the premise that people brought to the United States as children should be treated as low priorities for deportation. About 700,000 unauthorised immigrants, the majority of them brought to the United States as children, had signed up. The programme gives young immigrants, who are referred to as Dreamers after a proposal in Congress called the DREAM Act and must renew their DACA status every two years, the ability to work legally in the country.
The Trump administration officially rescinded DACA in March but the programme has allowed the Dreamers to renew applications after previous court orders.
In a statement, the Department of Justice said that it “will continue to vigorously defend this position and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation”.
The department “acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner,” the statement said. “Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders and its citizens.”
Immigration advocates hailed Mr Bates’ ruling, saying it highlighted the failure of the administration to justify terminating the programme.
“Either president Trump finds another way to end the programme, tossing hundreds of thousands of young people into deportation proceedings,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington, “or he works with Republicans and Democrats to find a legislative solution.”
In trying to close the programme, the Trump administration argued that former president, Barack Obama, had abused his authority and circumvented Congress to create DACA. President Donald Trump urged Congress to find a legislative remedy to replace it and expressed support for giving the Dreamers a path to citizenship.
Despite broad bipartisan support for the beneficiaries of the programme, Congress failed to agree on a solution. Mr Trump recently has wavered in his support of the young immigrants, at times even saying he would not agree to any deal to back them, as he called for a crackdown on illegal immigration and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.
In January, judge William Alsup of the US District Court in San Francisco ordered that previous beneficiaries of the programme must be allowed to renew their status. That lawsuit was filed by the University of California, which is led by Janet Napolitano, who was the secretary of homeland security when the programme began.
The next month, judge Nicholas Garaufis of the US District Court in Brooklyn decided in favour of attorneys general from 15 states and several advocacy groups that sued Homeland Security, issuing an injunction that blocked the DACA rollback. Unless the administration can justify its decision within 90 days, the cancellation of the programme will be vacated. The government is expected to appeal the decision.
The latest lawsuit was brought by the NAACP and Princeton University.
“Princeton higher education and our country benefit from the talent and aspirations that Dreamers bring to our communities,” Christopher Eisgruber, the university president, said in a statement. “We continue to urge Congress to enact a permanent solution.”
Hasan Shafiqullah, director of the immigration law unit of the Legal Aid Society of New York, said the ruling ushered in new hope, especially for younger siblings of DACA recipients who, as of last September, were ineligible to apply.
In three months’ time, they might be able to submit a new application, Mr Shafiqullah said, and “at last be able to come out of the shadows, register for DACA and – like their older siblings – more fully integrate into the fabric of our society.”
The New York Times