Trump Administration “Owns” DACA Outcome…Whatever That May Be | Justices Appear Split On Cross-Border Shooting Case
November 13, 2019
BECAUSE I SAID SO
|The Supreme Court yesterday heard oral argument regarding the future of DACA, a program shielding hundreds of thousands from deportation — and one the Trump administration is trying to end. Nina Totenberg with NPR explains the history of the DACA case and notes, “Until Tuesday the administration had consistently maintained that it had no choice but to pull the plug on the program because, as PRESIDENT TRUMP’S attorney general put it in September 2017, the DACA program was ‘illegal’ and ‘unconstitutional’ from the time it was first put in place in 2012. Three federal appeals courts disagreed and ruled that when an administration revokes a policy like this, on which so many people, businesses and even the U.S. economy have relied, the administration must provide a fully supported rationale that weighs the pros and cons of the program, the costs and the benefits.”
WE OWN THIS
|Justices seemed ready to give PRESIDENT TRUMP a win on DACA, although the more liberal members of the court made clear that they felt the administration hadn’t followed proper procedure as required by law for when ending such a program. TED OLSON, representing the Dreamers, said yesterday that the Trump administration did not want to own its decision on DACA, farming it out to the attorney general and his one-sentence declaration that the program was illegal. To rebut that notion, the solicitor general said that even if the program was found to be legal, Trump has decided to shut it down and is prepared for any political consequences of that decision. “We own this,” NOEL FRANCISCO declared.
THEN OWN IT
|Maggie Haberman with The New York Times reports that a SCOTUS ruling on DACA in DONALD TRUMP’S favor might not actually be a good thing for his presidency. She notes, “If the court decides that the administration has the right to end the program, known as DACA, Mr. Trump will face a consequence he has tried to put off for years: news coverage of efforts by the government to deport thousands of young immigrants in the midst of what is certain to be a difficult re-election battle.” Haberman explains that Trump has tried to argue that it wouldn’t be his fault if DACA ended, but the Supreme Court’s. However she reports that his argument may not work out so well after yesterday’s argument in which the solicitor general made very clear that the administration fully “owns” the decision to end the program.
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
|SCOTUS yesterday also heard a case on whether to let foreigners bring civil rights lawsuits in U.S. courts. Justices considered the case of a Mexican teenager who was shot and killed by an American Border Patrol agent when the agent fired his weapon from U.S. soil across the border and into Mexico. The dispute hinges on whether the boy’s family — even though their son died in Mexico — can seek monetary damages for the border agent violating the U.S. Constitution’s bar on unjustified deadly force, as well as the boy’s right to due process. The high court’s liberal justices appeared convinced to allow the parent’s lawsuit, though it was unclear if they’d be able to convince a conservative colleague to join their side. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR was vocal in her defense of the family’s arguments, and pushed back on the notion that if the case went forward it would have a chilling effect on border agents effectively doing their jobs. She said agents shouldn’t “shoot indiscriminately at children.” Sotomayor said of the case, “It involves a U.S. defendant on U.S. soil pulling the trigger and violating U.S. law.”
DOCTOR'S NOTE
|At the start of today’s arguments, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS announced that JUSTICE GINSBURG was not present for the day’s deliberations as she was “indisposed due to illness.” A court spokeswoman said the justice was home due to a stomach bug. RBG will participate in the case based on transcripts of oral arguments.
TUNE IN TO THIS
|The justices (sans RBG) today heard a case involving BYRON ALLEN, a black media mogul suing Comcast for violating Reconstruction-era protections against racial bias. Allen alleges Comcast discriminated against him when it refused to carry his company’s channels, but the cable provider says its decision was based on “insufficient consumer demand” for the programming. However, the justices today didn’t seem convinced that Allen’s suit should go forward.
ICYMI
|The Supreme Court yesterday said one survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting may pursue their lawsuit against the gun manufacturer responsible for making the weapon used kill 20 first-graders and 6 adults. Together the survivor and victims’ families are suing Remington Arms for its “reckless” marketing of the AR-15-style weapon used in the Connecticut mass shooting.
SCOTUS VIEWS
The Supreme Court’s Sandy Hook Ruling Is A Welcome Victory For Gun Violence Victims
The Washington Post“Gun makers and sellers have never really had to account for the deadly consequences of their products because of an unusual federal law enacted in 2005 that gives them immunity from most lawsuits. So the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a lawsuit brought in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is a significant — and welcome — development. It may give the families of the victims their day in court while providing a road map for victims of other mass shootings who seek answers and some measure of justice.”
The Wall Of Invulnerability Around U.S. Gun Manufacturers Just Crumbled A Little
Los Angeles Times“But the plaintiffs aren’t looking to squeeze money out of Remington. They want to have the gunmaker held legally responsible for the carnage inflicted with its product. They want to expose the inner workings of Remington in the marketing of the Bushmaster and, by extension, other combat-style firearms to civilians, which has made mass shootings more deadly.”