Trump Looks to Fast-Track DACA Appeal to Supreme Court
The Justice Department announced Tuesday it would both appeal a California federal judge's ruling from last week and seek direct review from the U.S. Supreme Court.
January 16, 2018 at 02:58 PM
3 minute read
The Department of Justice plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court this week to weigh in on its rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, bypassing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Last week, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the Trump administration's rescission of the DACA policy. The DOJ filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit in that case Tuesday, but U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement the DOJ also wants the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the case. He said it “defies both law and common sense” that a “single district court in San Francisco” could order the reinstallation of the DACA program.
“We are now taking the rare step of requesting direct review on the merits of this injunction by the Supreme Court so that this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved,” Sessions said.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, who include the University of California system, are represented by a team of lawyers from Covington & Burling as well as Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, among others.
The DOJ and President Donald Trump lambasted Alsup last week for his decision. Alsup's ruling follows several others that have been unfavorable to the Trump administration in the Northern California court and the Ninth Circuit, including decisions upholding injunctions against the third iteration of the travel ban executive order and the sanctuary cities executive order.
“It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our Court System is when the opposing side in a case (such as DACA) always runs to the 9th Circuit and almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts,” the president tweeted last week.
Sessions announced in September last year that the administration would rescind the DACA policy on the grounds it was illegal to begin with. He cited the Supreme Court's 4-4 split in 2016 on the issue, which left in place a Fifth Circuit ruling against a similar program for immigrant parents and an expansion of the DACA program.
Several lawsuits have been filed in multiple courts over the action ever since the administration's announcement. In addition to the cases in California, a similar set of related suits are pending at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. DOJ has filed an appeal with the Second Circuit in that case on whether the decision to rescind DACA qualifies as agency discretion.
Steven Goldblatt, faculty director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, said the high court has only skipped appellate review a “handful” of times in the last century.
“[The government] is going to have to articulate to the court that there's an urgency to having the court decide it that warrants accelerating the process and eliminating the court of appeals,” he said.
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
© 2024 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 AllUS Fifth Circuit Departs From Sister Courts on Copyright Infringement Damages
4 minute readEx-Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kamon, Shackled and Sniffing, Pleads Guilty
3 minute readSanta Rosa Firm Secures $46M Verdict for Plaintiff in Sonoma County Child Sexual Abuse Case
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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