Writer in Residence
Knight First Amendment Institute
Cristian Farias in Vanity Fair:
. . . .
No case in the Supreme Court’s current docket has higher stakes for human life in the era of COVID-19 than its upcoming ruling on the fate of so-called Dreamers—young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and who remain shielded from deportation thanks to a program President Barack Obama instituted in 2014.
A highly unusual letter made its way to the justices late last month, after the case had already been briefed, argued, and for which a decision is already in the works. Lawyers for a group of beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known colloquially as DACA, wrote to the justices to warn about the dire consequences that a ruling in favor of Trump would have on the roughly 27,000 health care workers who happen to be DACA recipients. Among them are doctors, nurses, paramedics, and others on the front lines of combating the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the country. “Termination of DACA during this national emergency would be catastrophic,” the lawyers wrote.
The letter wasn’t just an appeal to the justices’ humanity and sense of fairness—after all, like the rest of us, they themselves have had to cancel public hearings, practice social distancing, and adjust to telework. But the filing also brought to bear a legal requirement the Trump administration had to weigh, but didn’t, when the Department of Homeland Security first announced the wind-down of DACA: the multitude of “reliance interests” that the government had created when it instituted the program—not just for recipients who have built their livelihoods around it, but the scores of local governments, businesses, and institutions that rely on so-called Dreamers for their own day-to-day functioning. “The public health crisis now confronting our nation illuminates the depth of those interests as borne by employers, civil society, state, and local governments, and communities across the country, and especially by health care providers,” the lawyers wrote in their letter, which also listed examples of health care workers who would be at risk of losing it all if the Supreme Court somehow agreed with the arguments the Trump administration has made in its years-long bid to terminate DACA.
A pair of recent analyses by the Center for Migration Studies and the Center for American Progress broadened the lens and found that the number of DACA recipients who qualify as essential workers during the pandemic could reach hundreds of thousands, as many of them also work in the health industry as food preparers, custodians, or in administrative roles, or otherwise in the fields of education, manufacturing, transportation, food retail, or the hard-hit restaurant industry. Some of these health care professionals, like others in the trenches, have begun to speak up. “I am treating people suspected of having COVID-19, and all I’m asking is to stay in this country and provide that care,” Veronica Velasquez, a 27-year-old physical therapist at a Los Angeles community hospital, told USA Today. “We’re definitely helping them stay alive.” Speaking to the New York Times in the middle of his shift, Aldo Martinez, a 26-year-old paramedic in Florida who was brought to the U.S. when he was 12, seemed to make a direct appeal to the justices. “It’s imperative that the Supreme Court take account of conditions that did not exist back in November,” he said. “It seems nonsensical to invite even more chaos into an already chaotic time.”
The pandemic was unforeseen at the time the justices considered the DACA dispute in November and could well change the calculus for how the Supreme Court ultimately rules in the case. But the issue of “reliance,” which federal agencies promulgating or rolling back policy are required to consider under administrative law, is not new to the case. The words reliance or reliance interests came up dozens of times at the oral argument in November, with some justices appearing rightly concerned that the Trump administration did not engage in the due diligence federal law demands when rescinding a policy on which people’s lives, the economy, and other third parties depend. At the hearing, Justice Stephen Breyer articulated what the law expects in these circumstances. “When an agency’s prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests,” Justice Breyer said, quoting from a decade-old opinion by the late conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia, “it must be taken into account.” Justice Scalia added in his original 2009 opinion “that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” In other words, explain to the public why the current reality doesn’t affect your thinking for what you’re trying to do.
But when one reads the 2017 memorandum that rescinded DACA, or a later one that purported to better explain the termination, there’s no indication anywhere that the Trump administration took into account the human, economic, and social costs of leaving so many people—many of them with jobs, small businesses, American families, and ties to the community—unprotected. Later reporting by the New York Times revealed that a key actor in the deliberations to end DACA, then Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke, was herself deeply conflicted with signing her name to the anti-immigrant rationales that the White House, Stephen Miller, and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions advanced for rolling back the program—none of whom, it would seem, took into consideration the myriad harms that would flow from that decision.
Courts in California, New York, and Washington, D.C., took notice of these self-inflicted flaws and allowed DACA to remain in the books. “As a practical matter,” wrote a Brooklyn federal judge in early 2018, “it is obvious that hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and those close to them planned their lives around the program.” United States District Judge John Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion leaving DACA in place that the Trump administration showed “no true cognizance of the serious reliance interests at issue here”—and worse, that “it does not even identify what those interests are.”
The Trump administration’s evident failure to own up to the human cost of its policy choices and to spell them out clearly has now given the Supreme Court an opportunity to fix the mess. But as Joe Biden suggested in a statement shortly after the DACA letter was filed, the justices cannot just close their eyes to a reality that was not before them when they first took up the case: a pandemic that has touched every single one of us—and that has fallen hardest on those providing needed medical care. “If the Supreme Court upholds President Trump’s termination of DACA in the midst of a national public health emergency, it will leave a gaping hole in our health care system that is liable to cost American lives,” Biden said.
At the very least, the justices could discard the bare-bones justifications offered by the Trump administration for doing away with DACA and make him and his administration show their work. In the letter filed with the Supreme Court at the end of March, the lawyers suggest a sort of middle ground: a new round of legal arguments in writing addressing “whether remand to the agency for reconsideration of its decision to terminate DACA is appropriate in light of the extraordinary public health emergency.” In an interview, Muneer Ahmad, a Yale law professor who is a signatory to the letter, suggested that New York, where his clients reside, is a kind of ground zero that would be instructive for the justices. “New York is both an epicenter for Dreamers and DACA recipients and an epicenter of the pandemic,” he told me.
Trump may not want to take full responsibility for the federal response to the coronavirus. But the DACA controversy, at its very core, is about political accountability—about how the law requires the president and his government to take ownership of their policy choices, even those that harm others. During the hearing to consider DACA’s fate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor alluded to the realpolitik dimensions of ending the program when she asked Noel Francisco, Trump’s chief Supreme Court lawyer, to articulate the administration’s rationale for trying to end the program. “Where is the political decision made clearly?” she asked. “That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.”
*************************
Read Cristian’s full article at the above link.
And, Cristian is by no means the only one joining me in “calling out” the J.R. Five for their betrayal of America in favor of an anti-democratic, far right political agenda, groveling before a President who has flouted his racism and open disdain for the law and courts who won’t do his bidding.
Contributing Opinion Writer
NY Times
Linda Greenhouse in The NY Times flays the “J.R. Five’s” pathetic handling of the recent Wisconsin case that highlighted the GOP’s aggressive program of voter suppression.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/wisconsin-primary-supreme-court.html
Here’s an excerpt from Linda’s analysis of the Supreme mockery of justice in the recent Wisconsin voter case, RNC v. DNC:
In more than four decades of studying and writing about the Supreme Court, I’ve seen a lot (and yes, I’m thinking of Bush v. Gore). But I’ve rarely seen a development as disheartening as this one: a squirrelly, intellectually dishonest lecture in the form of an unsigned majority opinion, addressed to the four dissenting justices (Need I name them? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), about how “this court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”
Let’s think about that. “Ordinarily not alter”?
There are quite a few things that should not ordinarily be happening these days. People shouldn’t ordinarily be afraid of catching a deadly virus when exercising their right to vote. Half the poll-worker shifts in the city of Madison are not ordinarily vacant, abandoned by a work force composed mostly of people at high risk because of their age.
Milwaukee voters are not ordinarily reduced to using only five polling places. Typically, 180 are open. (Some poll workers who did show up on Tuesday wore hazmat suits. Many voters, forced to stand in line for hours, wore masks.) And the number of requests for absentee ballots in Milwaukee doesn’t ordinarily grow by a factor of 10, leading to a huge backlog for processing and mailing.
I wonder how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh understand the word “ordinarily.” And I wonder why the opinion was issued per curiam — “by the court.” Did none of the five have the nerve to take ownership by signing his name?
**************************
Read Linda’s full article at the link.
When a case pits the Republican National Committee against the Democratic National Committee do you really have to wonder who’s going to win with the “J.R. Five” in the driver’s seat at the Supremes?
I’ve been warning for some time about the institutional failure of the Article III Courts led by the disgraceful example of Roberts who is afraid to stand up to Trump when it counts. Interesting that in this and other areas, the “professional commentators” are picking up on and reinforcing things I have been saying on Courtside for a long time. And, much of the shabby performance of America’s life tenured judiciary begins with failing to stand up to Trump’s racist assault on migrants and his unconstitutional dismantling of justice in our overtly biased Immigration Courts.
Justice Sotomayor said it very clearly at oral argument in the DACA case: “That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.” The same can be said about much of the J.R. Five’s one-sided immigration jurisprudence in the “Age of Trump.”
Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!
PWS
04-10-20
