Why Judge John Bates Embraced 'Undocumented' Over 'Illegal' in DACA Ruling
In his ruling against the Trump administration's move to rescind the DACA immigration program, U.S. District Judge John Bates explained, in a footnote, his reasons for choosing "undocumented" over "illegal."
April 25, 2018 at 01:03 PM
4 minute read
A Washington federal trial judge's ruling Tuesday against the Trump administration's move to end a program that protects certain immigrants from deportation is getting a fair amount of attention for its substance and for the fact the decision was written by a Republican-appointed judge.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2001, called the termination of the program—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA—unlawful. Bates, however, gave the government 90 days to figure out a new way to wind down the program. Two other federal judges issued rulings in support of DACA in recent months, and those decisions are on appeal. Bates was the first Republican-nominated judge to smack the Trump administration.
But there's another element of the decision that's worth noting—the language of the court. Bates explicitly chose not to use the phrase “illegal alien” in his 60-page decision. He went with “undocumented immigrant.”
“Some courts, including the Supreme Court, have referred to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States as 'illegal' instead of 'undocumented,'” Bates wrote in a footnote, which pointed to the 2015 decision in the case Texas v. United States from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
That ruling was an appeal from a Texas judge's injunction in 2015 blocking another immigration program. The Fifth Circuit spotlighted legal writing guru Bryan Garner's 2011 dictionary on legal usage: “The usual and preferable term in [American English] is illegal alien. The other forms have arisen as needless euphemisms, and should be avoided as near gobbledygook,” Garner wrote.
In the Texas trial court, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas had embraced “illegal alien” because, he wrote, “it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.” Hanen cited the high court's 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States.
Hanen did not note the Supreme Court's December 2009 ruling in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, which observers said was the first time “undocumented immigrant” appeared in a decision by the justices.
The author of that opinion: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had been confirmed four months earlier. Bates, in his footnote, did mention Sotomayor's decision in weighing what language to use in his ruling against the Trump administration.
“Because both terms appear in the record materials here, and because, as at least one court has noted, 'there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase 'illegal alien' offensive,' the court will use the term 'undocumented,'” Bates said.
The “one court” Bates referred to: Hanen's 2015 opinion imposing a preliminary injunction against the DAPA program, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
Bates' ruling came in a case Jenner & Block filed on behalf of Princeton University, Microsoft Corp. and a DACA beneficiary named Maria De La Cruz. The case was combined with a similar suit filed by the NAACP against the Trump administration.
Read more:
Trump's Statements on Travel Ban Dominate Supreme Court Arguments
Supreme Court, Rejecting Trump Petition, Lets DACA Program Continue
Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court
California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute read'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250