WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's administration had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its bid to end a program that shields from deportation young migrants brought to the U.S. as children.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit partially reversed an earlier ruling in the case brought by the immigrant advocacy organization CASA de Maryland.
In a 2-1 decision, the court said the government had failed to "give a reasoned explanation for the change in policy, particularly given the significant" interests involved, according to the majority opinion written by Judge Albert Diaz and joined by Judge Robert King.
The ruling said the Department of Homeland Security did not "adequately account" for how ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would affect the hundreds of thousands of young people who "structured their lives" around the program.
"We recognize the struggle is not over and there are more battles to fight in the Supreme Court on this road to justice, but our families are emboldened by knowing that they are on the right side of history," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA de Maryland.
The decision is similar to one reached by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene. But the request has been pending for months.
It is expected that the Supreme Court will have to deliver the final word on the program, most likely in the term that begins in October. Another case challenging the administration's decision has been argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the case decided Friday, Judge Julius Richardson said in his dissent that the administration had acted within its authority and noted the limited role of the judiciary.
"It is not our place to second-guess the wisdom of the discretionary decisions made by the other branches. The rescission of DACA was a controversial and contentious decision, but one that was committed to the executive branch," wrote Richardson, who was recently nominated to the court by Trump. Diaz was nominated by President Barack Obama, and King by President Bill Clinton.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling Friday.
A series of lower-court judges ruled against the administration, finding that Trump's decision to end the program was based on faulty legal reasoning. Those decisions allowed migrants already enrolled to renew their participation -- meaning the program remained in place. The program, which was implemented under Obama, has shielded nearly 700,000 young people who were brought to the U.S. as children and are now in the country illegally. They are commonly referred to as "Dreamers."
EARLIER DECISION
The ruling from the Richmond, Va.-based 4th Circuit partly reverses a decision from the late U.S. District Judge Roger Titus of Maryland, who last year said that the administration had the authority to wind down the program.
In his decision, Titus, who was appointed to the federal bench in Maryland by President George W. Bush and died in March, criticized Trump for his "unfortunate and often inflammatory rhetoric," and noted that, were he not a judge constrained to interpreting the law, he would opt for a different result.
"An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for 'Dreamers,' yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act," Titus wrote, adding later, "This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done."
Preserving the program is a top Democratic priority, but discussions between Trump and Democrats on the matter have gone nowhere.
Trump's latest immigration plan, unveiled Thursday, does not address what to do about the hundreds of thousands of young people the program protects. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that "every single time that we have put forward or anyone else has put forward any type of immigration plan that has included DACA it's failed."
The new White House proposal seeks to prioritize the admission to the United States of high-skilled workers over those with family members who are U.S. citizens, but it does not change the net level of green cards allocated each year.
Separately, a White House spokesman left open the possibility Friday that Trump would invoke an arcane law that would allow him to deploy the military to remove people in the U.S. illegally.
Asked during a television appearance whether Trump is considering using the Insurrection Act, spokesman Hogan Gidley said the president is "going to do everything within his authority to protect the American people" and has "lots of tools at his disposal."
"We haven't used them all, and we're looking at ways to protect the American people," Gidley said during an appearance on Fox News' Fox & Friends.
The Insurrection Act allows the president to employ the military to combat lawlessness or rebellion.
Gidley's interview took place amid a series of tweets from Trump.
"All people that are illegally coming into the United States now will be removed from our Country at a later date as we build up our removal forces and as the laws are changed," Trump said in one tweet. "Please do not make yourselves too comfortable, you will be leaving soon!"
In another, Trump said "bad 'hombres'" were being detained and would be "sent home."
The idea of using the law was first reported by the Daily Caller, a conservative news outlet, after Trump finished his speech unveiling the new immigration plan Thursday afternoon.
Using the Insurrection Act would involve deployment of the National Guard and cooperation of governors who might not be inclined to go along with Trump's order.
Information for this article was contributed by Ann E. Marimow, Robert Barnes, Justin Jouvenal, John Wagner, Seung Min Kim, Josh Dawsey and David Nakamura of The Washington Post; and by Alan Suderman and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.
A Section on 05/18/2019