Civic Register
| 9.7.17

DACA Advocates File Lawsuits to Save the Program

Join us and tell your reps how you feel!

What’s the story?

On Tuesday President Trump rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, against the recommendations of many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The administration has planned a 6-month phase out of the program, ostensibly to give Congress time to replace the law or potentially not replace it.

In response to Tuesday’s decision, two court cases have already been filed to try and protect the Dreamers.

Why does it matter?

Late Tuesday the LA Times reported that a group of immigrant rights lawyers submitted a request to expand an existing lawsuit into a class action in order to fight the president’s repeal order. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Martin Batalla Vidal, who was born in Mexico but has lived in New York since he was brought there as a 7-year-old. Vidal’s employment authorization was revoked in 2015 following an injunction to prevent the expansion of DACA.

Vidal was about to start school to become a medical assistant.

The lawyers in the case are arguing that the repeal order was both illegal and unconstitutional because the change was issued without a "reasoned explanation" and showed bias against Latinos. There are tens of thousands of DACA recipients who are not from Mexico, Central and South America, but the majority are from those regions. President Trump began his presidential campaign strongly attacking Mexicans as “drug dealers” and “rapists.” However, he has also made public statements that he “loves the Dreamers,” and that they should not worry about DACA.

The Wall Street Journal reports on Wednesday that another court challenge to the repeal order was filed by state attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia. That suit alleges the repeal order "violates the Constitution’s equal protection and due process rights for DACA recipients."

Similarly to the argument in the Vidal case, the plaintiffs allege that the action was discriminatory. They also pointed to President Trump’s biased comments against Mexicans, who make up 78% of DACA recipients, arguing the repeal order violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Also, they believe it was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, calling the action "arbitrary" and “capricious”.

The plaintiffs seek to prevent the implementation of the repeal while the case winds through the courts, buying both DACA recipients and Congress more time.

A Department of Justice spokesman, Devin O’Malley, expressed to the Journal the department’s intent to defend the repeal, pointing to what they believe was the unconstitutionality of the executive order establishing DACA in the first place:

"While the plaintiffs in today’s lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration’s position."

What do you think?

Do you think DACA was unconstitutional or do you think the repeal order was unconstitutional? Do you think the suits are an important step to protect the Dreamers, or is it a moot point because Congressional leaders have said they will institute Dreamer protections soon? Do you think Congress should protect DACA recipients?

Tell us in the comments, the use the Take Action button to tell your reps!

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Br. Christian Seno, OFM via Flickr / Creative Commons)

Related Reading: