Why would rescinding DACA privileges be illegal?
<p>The Supreme Court recently <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-takes-no-action-on-daca-weakens-trump-hand-in-shutdown-talks.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">refused to hear</a> a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DACA policy</a>. This supposedly prevents Trump from rescinding the DACA program.</p>

<p>But why would cancelling DACA be illegal? If Obama created the program with an executive order, what could possibly prevent Trump from cancelling it with a single stroke of his pen?</p>

<p>Reading the linked article, it appears a district court in California issued an injunction against the administration ending DACA.  According to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/daca-9th-circuit/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the injunction, which is why the administration filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, but for now the injunction stands.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs argue the following (quoting their <a href="http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/UC-DACA-Complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">complaint</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This lawsuit, brought under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706...</p>
<p>Agency action is invalid under the APA if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or if it is taken “without observance of procedure required by law.”  5 U.S.C. § 706(2)...  Here, in multiple respects, Defendants failed to “articulate a satisfactory explanation” for their action that would enable a court to conclude that the decision was “the product of reasoned decisionmaking.”  State Farm, 463 U.S. at 52.</p>
<p>Because the Rescission is based on an incorrect legal premise—the purported illegality of DACA—it cannot survive judicial review under the APA.</p>
<p>Finally, in rescinding DACA, Defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution by failing to provide the University with any process before depriving it of the value of the public resources it invested in DACA recipients, and the benefits flowing from DACA recipients’ contributions to the University.  More fundamentally, they failed to provide DACA recipients with any process before depriving them of their work authorizations and DACA status, and the benefits that flow from that status.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm trying to find the actual injunction order, but for now this quote from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sums up the reason for ordering the injunction (from the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/daca-9th-circuit/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CNN article</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;We conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission of DACA -- at least as justified on this record -- is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,&quot; reads the opinion from Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Unlike a circuit appeals court, you do <strong>not</strong> have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. You have to ask and they have to say yes. They do not have to give any reason for saying no.</p>

<p>That said, the Supreme Court usually refuses to hear an appeal because a) on a brief reading the lower court seems to have got it right or b) the matter is not important enough for the court’s time.</p>

united-states immigration