Tuesday, November 12, 2019

SCOTUS hears DACA case, but the legal options are very narrow

Vox has a good explanation by Ian Millhiser of the oral arguments today before the Supreme Court concerning DACA, here

The legal question is very narrow, whether the Trump administration gave an adequate explanation of the action it was taking, reversing Obama’s policy.

The practical question is why Congress has been unable to put a reasonable policy solution into law.
Activists (especially Dreamers themselves) were sitting outside the Supreme Court this morning in the cold front.  The human cost sounds unthinkable, as young adults and teens who were raised here and have no knowledge of their home country culture and language are forced to return.

It is rather shocking that Congress (at least in the Senate) can’t address this, without tying it to other things (but Trump was tying it to the Wall last winter, as I remember).
You can imagine a push for citizen intervention, a sort of supportive sponsorship, comparable to what could be proposed for refugees and asylum seekers, but that would also require Congress.
Some observers take a more activist interpretation than Vox and call this a test for Judge Roberts (NY Times).  

There is outdoor video for reporters from C-Span

Transcript of oral arguments is here.

First Baptist Church picture at demonstration. 


The Supreme Court has allowed a lawsuit against Remington to proceed (in Connecticut state court) by Sandy Hook families, where the manufacturer is accused of marketing a military style weapon to civilians, not necessarily included in a federal downstream liability law.  This sets a precedent for speech cases (CDA230) maybe. (story on NPR by Bill Chappell). 

No comments: