A Dream Deferred? Why America Needed the Supreme Court to Keep DACA in Place
Regents keeps the American Dream alive, but only for now. It is now up to us to push the other political branches to find a solution that will keep it alive for good in order to remind the world—and more importantly, ourselves—why this truly is the land of opportunity.
June 29, 2020 at 04:15 PM
5 minute read
On June 18 during historic unrest and national uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered from the dredges of administrative law a decision hardly landmark, but certainly consequential.
In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and two companion cases, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for a bare majority of the Court, kept the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA) program in place, for now. DACA protects from deportation, and gives work permits to, approximately 700,000 young immigrants with no lawful status who have clean criminal records and pursue higher education.
The decision itself, devoid of context, is almost mundane. The majority goes to some lengths to apply the Administrative Procedure Act exactingly, and it concludes that DACA's rescission, while permissible in theory, was arbitrary and capricious in this instance.
The country needed this win. Before I can explain why, I must admit I am not impartial. Almost 20 years ago, a bipartisan group of Texas legislators passed one of the first versions of the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act. I was a high school senior at the time, and the DREAM Act opened the doors of education for me.
I was not undocumented and cannot fathom the toxic anxiety and stress of living in the legal shadows. My parents—who immigrated with me from Chile to teach Spanish to fifth graders in New Orleans—worked under the H-1B worker visa program (the one the Trump administration recently suspended). As a result, despite spending six years in public schools and graduating with honors, I would have had to pay three times as much as others for state colleges, and I had no financial aid options. The youth protected by DACA for the time being find themselves in a somewhat similar, although worse, situation.
The Texas DREAM Act changed that for me. It was the springboard for my life and career in America. I must recognize with humility if not modesty that thanks to the DREAM Act, I became a lawyer. I have tried multimillion-dollar cases, helped South Dallas residents remove havens of crime from their streets, secured the release of Tibetan asylum seekers from detention, served on municipal boards, founded nonprofits, and funded scholarships. In short, I have tried my best to return the gift I received by contributing to the community.
So, I received Regents with relief, but not just because of my personal connection.
This is a tough time for America. Our personal and public health is under attack. Our economy is strained to historic levels. Our politics are frayed, and our public discourse, distracted and eroded by online echo chambers, is ill-equipped to unite us. To boot, the ever-simmering structural inequality that has plagued this continent for centuries has exploded into our streets like it has not in decades.
History teaches that faith in the American experiment—in the American dream—is the only thing that can push us forward into better days. Regents offers some hope that our faith is not in vain.
Regents reminds us that we have an independent court that often, however imperfectly, protects minorities and the disenfranchised. Regents also reminds the executive branch that, as Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1961, "the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people."
More importantly, Regents keeps hope alive for 700,000 young immigrants. Most have pursued higher education. Many have fought for our country. Some have started new businesses and employ Americans. Tens of thousands have tended to the sick and are considered "essential" under current COVID-19 orders. Regents quite literally helps these aspiring Americans, as well as their American children, spouses, colleagues and teachers, keep the American dream alive.
I do not mean to ignore or discredit the good faith concerns of anti-immigration advocates, nor do I purport to defend President Barack Obama's potential executive overreach. But when we celebrate our nation and its values, we do not look back to Korematsu v. United States or "Operation Wetback" for inspiration. We call on jurisprudential acts of inclusion that square with the message on our Statute of Liberty. As Regents does.
The very term "dreamers" speaks to our hopes, not our fears. Regents hearkens back to those times in which our courts and politics have helped instead of oppressed the "others" in our society. It gives a needed boost to the people and ideals we all agree have always made America great: hardworking innovators building our nation; immigrants jumping at the chance to use lawful ways to live in this country; and a shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race or origin.
Regents keeps the American Dream alive, but only for now. It is now up to us to push the other political branches to find a solution that will keep it alive for good in order to remind the world—and more importantly, ourselves—why this truly is the land of opportunity.
Andrés Correa is a partner at the law firm Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
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 AllUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readMass. Judge Declares Mistrial in Talc Trial: 'Court Can't Accommodate This Case'
3 minute readTrending Stories
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