Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the nearly 800,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, also known as 鈥淒reamers,鈥� who came to the U.S. as children. The Trump administration sought to end DACA but today鈥檚 5 to 4 decision from the highest court struck down the attempt.
In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established DACA for immigrants who came to the U.S. before they were 16 years old. To be eligible, a person also has to be under the age of 31 and a continuous U.S. resident since June 15, 2007. They must be enrolled in school, be a high school or GED graduate or have an honorable discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard or a military branch. They cannot be a convicted felon or have a significant misdemeanor on their records. Results of a show nearly 75 percent of U.S. adults support 鈥淒reamers,鈥� almost all of whom were born in the Latin America and Caribbean regions.
鈥淭he Supreme Court decision issued by the chief justice today on DACA is significant for two important reasons,鈥� said , executive director of Notre Dame鈥檚 and a faculty member at the .
鈥淔irst, the court, relying on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), confirms that while the executive branch may have broad authority over federal agency decisions, this authority has limits. In particular, Congress has legislated through the APA that when an agency, in this case DHS, reverses a previous agency decision, they must provide an adequate and reasonable explanation for a reversal and such change in agency policy cannot be arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court found that it had jurisdiction to review this executive branch action and DHS's reversal of the DACA policy that was established under the Obama Administration and also held that DHS's decision violated the APA,鈥� she said.
Today鈥檚 Supreme Court decision was in line with what lower courts found: That in its effort to dismantle DACA, the Trump administration did not do so legally and did not consider how discontinuing the program would violate the rights of DACA recipients.
鈥淭he second reason the ruling is significant is the individuals who were granted deferred action under the Obama administration had relied on this immigration听status and so DHS was required to address this reliance in making a drastic听reversal in immigration policy.听DHS failed to do so,鈥� Corcoran said. 鈥淭oday the Supreme Court confirmed that executive branch action, even on matters where they have broad discretion, such as immigration, is not absolute.鈥澨�
听
Contact:听Erin Corcoran,听ecorcora@nd.edu