Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against DACA Rollback
"The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose 'province and duty' it is 'to say what the law is,'" wrote Ninth Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw, quoting from Marbury v. Madison.
November 08, 2018 at 01:39 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday upheld a lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the federal government's rollback the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
In a 99-page opinion, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen was “incorrect in her belief that DACA was illegal and had to be rescinded.”
Wardlaw also turned back the administration's conclusion that its decision DACA was illegal was not reviewable by the courts. “The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose 'province and duty' it is 'to say what the law is,'” she wrote, quoting from Marbury v. Madison.
The Ninth Circuit ruling upholds a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, who blocked the Trump administration's decision to roll back DACA. The DACA program temporarily exempts certain undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation.
Jeffrey Davidson, a Covington & Burling partner who argued the case on behalf of The Regents of the University of California and university president Janet Napolitano, says the decision “sets a terrific tone” for other cases over DACA recission.
“Our main allegation in this case is the government failed to give any consideration to the interest of the DACA recipients when it rescinded DACA, and that the decision was based on an error of law and was inadequately explained,” Davidson said. “And these are all very sort of common-sense aspects of government decision making.”
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Ethan Dettmer, whose firm represented a group of individual DACA recipients, said in an email statement this his clients “embody the American Dream.” Wardlaw opens her opinion with a description of Gibson's client Dulce Garcia, who was brought to the U.S. by her parents as a 4-year-old, and who now serves as a lawyer for underserved communities.
“In upholding Judge Alsup's preliminary injunction, the Court recognized that Dreamers are 'no different from any other productive—indeed inspiring—young American,' and that DACA was put in place to prevent 'the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties,'” Dettmer said. “Today's order is a victory for the rule of law that allows DACA holders to continue to renew their DACA status.”
Other law firms representing plaintiffs include Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy and Altshuler Berzon. Among the slew of big law firms that filed amicus briefs with the Ninth Circuit were Davis Wright Tremaine, Jenner & Block, Mayer Brown, Fenwick & West, Boies Schiller Flexner, Steptoe & Johnson, and Venable LLP, and Cooley.
The Ninth Circuit decision comes days after the Department of Justice petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the future of DACA recipients. The move followed a letter sent to the Ninth Circuit by the DOJ imposing an Oct. 31 deadline to rule on the DACA case, stating that failure to meet the deadline would lead to a “petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.”
Covington's Davidson noted that given Thursday's Ninth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court decision “no longer makes any sense.”
“It seems to me there ought to be new proceedings to decide whether and how the Supreme Court should address this case,” he added.
Read the full opinion below:
Read more:
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 asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readPrivate Equity Giant KKR Refiles SDNY Countersuit in DOJ Premerger Filing Row
3 minute readSeveral Big Law Firms Saw Year-Over-Year Lobbying Revenue Growth in 2024
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 2Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 3'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 4Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 5Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
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