Trump Administration Seeks SCOTUS Cert in DACA Suits
DOJ attorneys filed a writ of certiorari before judgment over two suits currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in addition to similar requests from the Ninth and D.C. circuits.
November 05, 2018 at 06:49 PM
3 minute read
The Trump Department of Justice sought Monday to have the U.S. Supreme Court step in to put a halt to legal battles in three jurisdictions over the decision to wind-down an Obama-era immigration program in 2017.
In a writ of certiorari before judgment, DOJ attorneys announced the move seeking the high court's intervention in cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Ninth and D.C. circuits. All three circuits have decisions from lower courts that concluded the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals “either is or likely is unlawful,” according to the DOJ's filing.
“Those decisions are wrong and they warrant this court's immediate review,” the government stated.
In a statement issued via Twitter, New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood, who leads a suit by more than a dozen state plaintiffs challenging the DACA recession, said the DOJ “has shown a remarkable lack of respect for the judicial process by repeatedly seeking to skip over the lower courts and, rather, go straight to the Supreme Court.”
As it stands, New York's suit is bound to another suit filed by private parties in the Second Circuit, up on interlocutory appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As the DOJ filing noted, the Second Circuit is expected to file petitions for writs from all three jurisdictions “to ensure that the court has an adequate vehicle in which to resolve the questions presented in a timely and definitive manner.”
Part of the DOJ's urgency comes from nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York and U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Central District of California. Both injunctions halted the recession process, even while allowing the Department of Homeland Security to cease enrolling new DACA recipients.
The DOJ argued in its brief that its decision to dismantle the DACA program was supported by a 2015 order in United States v. Texas, out of the Fifth Circuit. That decision, by upholding a lower court's injunction, effectively put an end to DACA sister programs. The underlying logic of Texas has been used by the DOJ and other executive agencies and departments to attack DACA, which they claim suffers from the same legal infirmities identified by the Fifth Circuit.
In a statement, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argued that since the Obama administration “started DACA without a mandate or even an authorization from Congress or the courts; this administration can therefore end DACA at any time.”
“That is what we have done, and it was the lawful thing to do. Immigration law in this country—and the status of DACA recipients in particular—ultimately must be settled by our representatives in Congress,” Sessions said. “The Department of Justice should not have been forced to make this filing today—the Ninth Circuit should have acted expeditiously, just as the Supreme Court expected them to do—but we will not hesitate to defend the constitutional system of checks and balances vigorously and resolutely.”
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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