Skip to content

Federal Judge Spikes Trump’s Hatred For Dreamers

April 24, 2018

A federal judge for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to not only continue processing existing applicants to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but also to resume accepting new applications.   

This is but one more example of how the checks and balances of the United States government are stopping Donald Trump.  Rules and laws, can and will, stymie this administration and put brakes on the Trump voters insanity at the ballot box.

U.S. District Judge John Bates was withering in his 60-page ruling, calling the administration’s attempts to end the program, known as DACA, “arbitrary,” “capricious,” “virtually unexplained” and “unlawful.”

Bates gave the Department of Homeland Security 90 days to offer better arguments for scrapping the program.

Having concluded that DACA’s rescission violated the APA, the question of remedy remains. As an initial matter, the Court will reject the government’s invitation to confine its grant of relief strictly to the plaintiffs in this action. See Defs.’ Reply at 44–45. As plaintiffs point out, the D.C. Circuit has previously rejected an agency’s suggestion that “the named plaintiffs alone should be protected by [an] injunction,” explaining that “[w]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.” Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Moreover, as the Fifth Circuit noted in Texas, the immigration context counsels strongly in favor of nationwide relief: “the Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’” 809 F.3d at 187 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8), “Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly,’” id. at 187–88 (quoting Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–603, § 115(1), 100 Stat. 3359, 3384), “and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system,’” id. at 188 (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012)). Thus, the Court concludes that nationwide relief is appropriate here.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: