“The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on a trio of cases asking whether the Trump administration acted properly when it decided to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — an Obama-era program that allows unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the the US as children to live and work in the United States. A question looms over tomorrow’s hearing, however: Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear these cases in the first place? Certainly the human stakes in these cases — Trump v. NAACP, McAleenan v. Vidal, and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California — are enormous. Almost 670,000 immigrants are protected by DACA. Ending the program opens them up to deportation. Families could be ripped apart; communities will be devastated. There really is a significant human toll here. But the Supreme Court typically only hears cases that involve a significant legal question. Indeed, the Court’s own rules state that it will only agree to hear a case ‘for compelling reasons,’ and they emphasize that the Court typically only hears ‘important’ questions of federal law. In this instance, the legal issue at the heart of the case is tiny.”
MORE>
No comments:
Post a Comment