Page 13 - CLT062220

NEWS JUNE 22, 2020 ¦ 13

two questions: whether the decision to rescind the In February 2019, a second federal judge—Nicho-
DACA policy was reviewable by courts, and wheth- las Garaufis in Brooklyn—issued an order keeping
er the decision was lawful. in place the DACA program. That ruling in Vidal v.
The justices consolidated the California case with Nielsen stemmed from lawsuits filed by immigration
two other cases in which the Trump administration rights groups and 15 state attorneys general and the
suffered defeats: Wolf v. Vidal (Second Circuit) and District of Columbia.
Trump v. NAACP (D.C. District Court). And in April 2018, U.S. District Judge John Bates
During arguments in November, the court’s con- in Washington, D.C., ruled against the Trump ad-
servative justices appeared ready to side with the ministration’s rescission of the DACA program in
government, although expressing sympathy for the the suit filed by the NAACP and Princeton Univer-
plight of the Dreamers. The justices on the liberal sity trustees.
wing were skeptical of the administration’s justifica- ¦

tions for the wind down and noted the strong reliance Marcia Coyle, based in Washington, covers the
on the program by not just Dreamers but by military U.S. Supreme Court. Contact her at mcoyle@alm.
organizations, educational institutions and others. com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle
“DACA was always meant to be a temporary stop-
gap measure that could be rescinded at any time, Michael Marciano is bureau chief of the Con-
which is why it was only granted in two-year incre- necticut Law Tribune. He can be reached at
ments,” Francisco argued. “So I don’t think anybody [email protected] or call 646-957-3022. On
could have reasonably assumed that DACA was go- Twitter: @BreakingCTLaw
ing to remain in effect in perpetuity.”
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Olson,
counsel to the parties defending DACA, told the justices
that the administration’s decision to end the program
“triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and
substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individu-
als, their families, employers, communities and the
armed forces. That decision required the government
to provide an accurate, reasoned, rational and legally
sound explanation. It utterly failed to do so.”
After the government announced the program’s
termination, five related lawsuits challenging the
decision were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Get the information you need to win
Northern District of California. cases and negotiate from strength.

The challengers included the regents of the Uni- We know you need quick access to verdict information. That’s why we created
versity of California, DACA recipients, California VerdictSearch, so you can have over 180,000 verdicts and settlements,
updated daily, at your fingertips. Search for award amounts, expert witnesses

and a number of other states and counties, and a and more to win cases and negotiate from a position of strength.

labor union. They argued the rescission of the pro- GeT a free 24-hour Trial

gram violated the APA and due process, and denied VerdictSearch.com
DACA recipients the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francis-
co in January 2019 issued the first of two temporary To get started, visit VerdictSearch.com or contact

nationwide injunctions after finding that the chal- the VerdictSearch Sales Team at 1-800-445-6823

lengers to the government’s action were likely to
succeed in showing that the decision to rescind the
DACA policy was arbitrary and capricious.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune