Trump Slams Ninth Circuit After Early DACA Loss
U.S. District Judge William Alsup found the decision to roll back the Obama-era program was based on a faulty conclusion that the prior administration exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority.
January 10, 2018 at 09:48 AM
4 minute read
President Donald Trump renewed his Twitter barrage on the Ninth Circuit Wednesday after another district court judge shot down one of his administration's policies.
On Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the Trump administration's decision to wind down an Obama-era program that shields children of undocumented immigrants from deportation.
The decision drew the president's ire on Twitter early Wednesday morning.
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.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2018
It's not the first time Trump has criticized a judge after ruling against one of his policies. Trump took a shot at “unelected” judges after his travel ban was dealt a loss in the Ninth Circuit, and after District Judge William Orrick ruled against his administration's sanctuary cities policy.
The administration's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, announced Sept. 5, was challenged in federal courts on both coasts by Democratic states' attorneys general and advocacy groups, who claimed the decision was legally flawed.
In a 49-page opinion issued Tuesday evening, Alsup denied the Trump administration's bid to dismiss one batch of the lawsuits and granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction halting the rollback of the program. Alsup found the rollback of the Obama-era program was based on a faulty conclusion that the prior administration had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority when implementing it.
“DACA covers a class of immigrants whose presence, seemingly all agree, pose the least, if any, threat and allows them to sign up for honest labor on the condition of continued good behavior,” Alsup wrote. “This has become an important program for DACA recipients and their families, for the employers who hire them, for our tax treasuries and for our economy.”
Alsup ordered the government to continue processing applications for people who are already in the program but found that the federal government did not have to process new applications from people who hadn't previously been protected by the program.
Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley issued a statement Tuesday night, saying the decision “doesn't change the Department of Justice's position on the facts.”
“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” O'Malley said.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who was among the lawyers filing suit, said in a press statement that the decision was “a huge step in the right direction.”
“Dreamers' lives were thrown into chaos when the Trump Administration tried to terminate the DACA program without obeying the law,” Becerra said. “ America is and has been home to Dreamers who courageously came forward, applied for DACA and did everything the federal government asked of them. … We will fight at every turn for their rights and opportunities so they may continue to contribute to America.”
On the East Coast, the Justice Department was granted permission Monday to file an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on whether the rescission of DACA qualifies as agency discretion. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York ruled rolling back DACA does not fall under agency discretion.
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 [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHusch Blackwell Hires Former Adobe Counsel to Oversee AI Advisory Offering
3 minute readTyson & Mendes Appoints Cayce Lynch First Female Nationwide Managing Partner
DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
Pentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
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