https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111US1045D20170929&p=DACA,+US+supreme+court
US Supreme Court, Rejecting Trump Petition, Lets DACA Program Continue
ALM MediaFebruary 26, 2018
A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries. [/caption] The Trump administration lost its bid Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate quickly an immigration program that allows hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, many now adults, to remain in the country lawfully. The high court refused to act on the government's petition in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California before an appeals court had ruled on the whether the decision to rescind the program was legal. In denying review of the government's petition "without prejudice," the justices said, "it is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the high court to review and decide the legality of the Trump administration's Sept. 5 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The request urged the court to act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the government's appeal of a trial judge's preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court rarely agrees to grant review before an appellate court has reached judgment. So-called "certiorari before judgment" is reserved for extraordinary cases; the last time it was granted was nearly 30 years ago. After the government announced the program's termination, five related lawsuits challenging the decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The challengers, led by Covington & Burling's Robert Long and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, include the regents of the University of California, DACA recipients, California and a number of other states and counties, and a labor union. They argued that DACA's rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, and denied DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws. More than 100 U.S. companies, many in the technology sector, have lined up in support of the DACA program. A Mayer Brown team filed an amicus brief in California federal court. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman signed the brief on behalf of tech clients Airbnb, Square, Twitter and Yelp. In Washington, Microsoft Corp. and Princeton University, represented by Jenner & Block on the joint complaint, sued to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in January issued the first of two temporary nationwide injunctions after finding that the challengers to the government's action were likely to succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious. On Feb. 13, a second federal judge—Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping in place the DACA program. Under his order, the DACA program stays in place as it was before the Sept. 5 decision to wind it down. The government does not have to accept new app
A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries. [/caption] The Trump administration lost its bid Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate quickly an immigration program that allows hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, many now adults, to remain in the country lawfully. The high court refused to act on the government's petition in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California before an appeals court had ruled on the whether the decision to rescind the program was legal. In denying review of the government's petition "without prejudice," the justices said, "it is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the high court to review and decide the legality of the Trump administration's Sept. 5 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The request urged the court to act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the government's appeal of a trial judge's preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court rarely agrees to grant review before an appellate court has reached judgment. So-called "certiorari before judgment" is reserved for extraordinary cases; the last time it was granted was nearly 30 years ago. After the government announced the program's termination, five related lawsuits challenging the decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The challengers, led by Covington & Burling's Robert Long and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, include the regents of the University of California, DACA recipients, California and a number of other states and counties, and a labor union. They argued that DACA's rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, and denied DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws. More than 100 U.S. companies, many in the technology sector, have lined up in support of the DACA program. A Mayer Brown team filed an amicus brief in California federal court. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman signed the brief on behalf of tech clients Airbnb, Square, Twitter and Yelp. In Washington, Microsoft Corp. and Princeton University, represented by Jenner & Block on the joint complaint, sued to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in January issued the first of two temporary nationwide injunctions after finding that the challengers to the government's action were likely to succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious. On Feb. 13, a second federal judge—Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping in place the DACA program. Under his order, the DACA program stays in place as it was before the Sept. 5 decision to wind it down. The government does not have to accept new applications and can consider renewals on a case-by-case basis, according to the judge. That ruling in Vidal v. Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Francisco asked the justices to decide two questions: whether the decision to rescind the DACA policy is reviewable by courts, and whether the decision is lawful. Read more: Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court 'The Words of the President' Doom Trump Travel Ban, Fourth Circuit Says California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ NY Judge Garaufis Doubles Down on Nationwide DACA Injunction States, Schools and Dreamers: Courts Bombarded With DACA Suits" data-reactid="11">lications and can consider renewals on a case-by-case basis, according to the judge. That ruling in Vidal v. Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Francisco asked the justices to decide two questions: whether the decision to rescind the DACA policy is reviewable by courts, and whether the decision is lawful. Read more: Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court 'The Words of the President' Doom Trump Travel Ban, Fourth Circuit Says California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ NY Judge Garaufis Doubles Down on Nationwide DACA Injunction States, Schools and Dreamers: Courts Bombarded With DACA Suits
US Supreme Court, Rejecting Trump Petition, Lets DACA Program Continue
ALM MediaFebruary 26, 2018
A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries. [/caption] The Trump administration lost its bid Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate quickly an immigration program that allows hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, many now adults, to remain in the country lawfully. The high court refused to act on the government's petition in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California before an appeals court had ruled on the whether the decision to rescind the program was legal. In denying review of the government's petition "without prejudice," the justices said, "it is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the high court to review and decide the legality of the Trump administration's Sept. 5 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The request urged the court to act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the government's appeal of a trial judge's preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court rarely agrees to grant review before an appellate court has reached judgment. So-called "certiorari before judgment" is reserved for extraordinary cases; the last time it was granted was nearly 30 years ago. After the government announced the program's termination, five related lawsuits challenging the decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The challengers, led by Covington & Burling's Robert Long and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, include the regents of the University of California, DACA recipients, California and a number of other states and counties, and a labor union. They argued that DACA's rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, and denied DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws. More than 100 U.S. companies, many in the technology sector, have lined up in support of the DACA program. A Mayer Brown team filed an amicus brief in California federal court. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman signed the brief on behalf of tech clients Airbnb, Square, Twitter and Yelp. In Washington, Microsoft Corp. and Princeton University, represented by Jenner & Block on the joint complaint, sued to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in January issued the first of two temporary nationwide injunctions after finding that the challengers to the government's action were likely to succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious. On Feb. 13, a second federal judge—Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping in place the DACA program. Under his order, the DACA program stays in place as it was before the Sept. 5 decision to wind it down. The government does not have to accept new app
A rally at the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's effort to ban immigration from 7 Muslim-majority countries. [/caption] The Trump administration lost its bid Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court to terminate quickly an immigration program that allows hundreds of thousands of immigrant children, many now adults, to remain in the country lawfully. The high court refused to act on the government's petition in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California before an appeals court had ruled on the whether the decision to rescind the program was legal. In denying review of the government's petition "without prejudice," the justices said, "it is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the high court to review and decide the legality of the Trump administration's Sept. 5 decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The request urged the court to act before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the government's appeal of a trial judge's preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court rarely agrees to grant review before an appellate court has reached judgment. So-called "certiorari before judgment" is reserved for extraordinary cases; the last time it was granted was nearly 30 years ago. After the government announced the program's termination, five related lawsuits challenging the decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The challengers, led by Covington & Burling's Robert Long and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous, include the regents of the University of California, DACA recipients, California and a number of other states and counties, and a labor union. They argued that DACA's rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act and due process, and denied DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws. More than 100 U.S. companies, many in the technology sector, have lined up in support of the DACA program. A Mayer Brown team filed an amicus brief in California federal court. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman signed the brief on behalf of tech clients Airbnb, Square, Twitter and Yelp. In Washington, Microsoft Corp. and Princeton University, represented by Jenner & Block on the joint complaint, sued to keep DACA in place. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in January issued the first of two temporary nationwide injunctions after finding that the challengers to the government's action were likely to succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious. On Feb. 13, a second federal judge—Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping in place the DACA program. Under his order, the DACA program stays in place as it was before the Sept. 5 decision to wind it down. The government does not have to accept new applications and can consider renewals on a case-by-case basis, according to the judge. That ruling in Vidal v. Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Francisco asked the justices to decide two questions: whether the decision to rescind the DACA policy is reviewable by courts, and whether the decision is lawful. Read more: Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court 'The Words of the President' Doom Trump Travel Ban, Fourth Circuit Says California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ NY Judge Garaufis Doubles Down on Nationwide DACA Injunction States, Schools and Dreamers: Courts Bombarded With DACA Suits" data-reactid="11">lications and can consider renewals on a case-by-case basis, according to the judge. That ruling in Vidal v. Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia. In U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Francisco asked the justices to decide two questions: whether the decision to rescind the DACA policy is reviewable by courts, and whether the decision is lawful. Read more: Covington, Gibson Dunn Are Big Law's DACA Defense at Supreme Court 'The Words of the President' Doom Trump Travel Ban, Fourth Circuit Says California Judge William Alsup Writes SCOTUS to Correct Trump's DOJ NY Judge Garaufis Doubles Down on Nationwide DACA Injunction States, Schools and Dreamers: Courts Bombarded With DACA Suits
