Justice Department Tells Court to Disregard Trump's DACA Tweet
DOJ lawyers said the president's tweet linking any deal to reinstate DACA with funding for his controversial border wall shouldn't affect litigation challenging the rescission of the program.
January 05, 2018 at 03:25 PM
3 minute read
DOJ lawyers defending the Trump administration's decision to rescind the DACA program have asked a federal judge in San Francisco to disregard the president's December tweet haranguing congressional Democrats regarding his immigration priorities.
On Dec. 29, the president tweeted, ”The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!”
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers wrote Friday the tweet came four months after the rescission and is irrelevant to what motivated the acting Homeland Security secretary—the official responsible for the decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Besides, the government lawyers contend, the tweet itself does not indicate the decision to rescind DACA was aimed at gaining leverage to move forward with the administration's immigration agenda.
“The determination by the then-acting secretary of Homeland Security that DACA should be rescinded is a separate question from the terms on which the president would support congressional legislation,” the DOJ lawyers wrote.
Lawyers challenging the DACA rescission—a team that includes Covington & Burling, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Altshuler Berzon and attorneys with the California attorney general—asked U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California to supplement the record with the tweet, claiming it reveals the government's stated rationale that the policy move was meant to curtail litigation risks was bogus.
“The president's tweet in Exhibit A explicitly proposes a trade of DACA for anti-immigration legislation and a border wall, and thereby further supports the inference that defendants rescinded DACA not for the reasons they stated, but to create this bargaining opportunity,” the lawyers said.
Earlier this month, Alsup asked DOJ lawyers to weigh in on whether they had objections to him taking judicial notice of the tweet, and what significance it might have on the plaintiffs' motion to block the rescission.
Prior to Friday's filing, Justice Department lawyers previously told at least one federal judge in Washington, D.C., that the government treats the president's tweets as “official statements.” In that case—a Freedom of Information Act brought by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein seeking information related to a summary of the so-called “Steele dossier” provided to President Donald Trump—U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of the District of Columbia similarly asked DOJ lawyers in November to illuminate how the government views the president's tweets, and “how official they are.”
Although the government lawyers in the D.C. case acknowledged the tweets are attributable to the president, they argued that plaintiffs were “not entitled to clarification of what the president has chosen to say.”
In an opinion issued Thursday, Mehta found that tweets didn't amount to “official acknowledgment” of the requested documents in the FOIA case, which would have undermined government efforts to keep records secret. “[I]t does not follow that just because a tweet is an 'official' statement of the president that its substance is necessarily grounded in information contained in government records.” Mehta wrote.
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 AllO'Melveny Secures Global Clearances for Korean Air-Asiana Merger
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readK&L Gates Secures $10.5M Verdict for Washington Meat Retailer in Lawsuit Over 'Boneless' Chicken Product
As AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Trending Stories
- 1Trump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
- 2Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 3The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 4Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 5Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
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