Trump v. NAACP

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 28 Jun 2019

1. This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows:
2. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable.
3. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed the legality of the Trump administration's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected eligible immigrant youth from deportation. The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, emphasizing that while DHS could end DACA, it must do so in a manner consistent with procedural requirements. The ruling did not address whether DACA itself is lawful but focused on how its termination was handled.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in part, dissented from the majority opinion that allowed the Trump administration to rescind DACA. She argued that the decision failed to adequately consider how ending DACA would impact its recipients and their communities. Sotomayor emphasized that many young immigrants had relied on this program for protection against deportation and access to work permits, which enabled them to contribute significantly to society. The dissent criticized the majority for not addressing whether racial animus influenced the decision-making process behind terminating DACA. Furthermore, she highlighted procedural deficiencies in how DHS justified its actions under administrative law principles. By neglecting these considerations, Sotomayor contended that both legal standards and moral obligations were overlooked.