DACA Debate Dominates Supreme Court’s Week
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the most significant cases of the term this week. In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Court must decide the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration policy.
The suit involves the lawfulness of the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to phase out DACA, which allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation. The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious.At this point, it is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule, with the justices asking tough questions of all the parties. It is also possible that the justices won’t reach the merits, instead deciding that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the case in the first place.
DACA wasn’t the only controversial issue before the justices. They also considered the following cases:
Hernandez v. Mesa: The closely-watched case involves the fatal shooting of a Mexican teenager by United States Border Patrol from across the U.S. border onto Mexican soil.The Court previously considered the case in 2017, but remanded it back to the Fifth Circuit without reaching the merits. This time around the Court will consider the following question: “Whether, when the plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law-enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.”
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media: Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN)’s suit alleges that Comcast’s decision to not carry ESN’s networks was racially-motivated in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the suit, ruling that Section 1981 does not require but-for causation and that ESN only needed to show that race was one “motivating factor” in the company’s decision. The Ninth Circuit’s decision deepened the split among the other courts of appeals on the issue, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene. It will decide the following question: “Whether a claim of race discrimination under42 U.S.C. §1981fails in the absence of but-for causation.”
Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC: In bankruptcy, parties must appeal final orders within 14 days of the court’s ruling. The Court has agreed to consider the following question: “Whether an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final order under28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).”
SCOTUS Stops Disclosure of Donald Trump’s Financial Recordsby DONALD SCARINCI on December 3, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump’s request for a stay in Trump v. Mazars...
Supreme Court to Consider Copyright Suit of the Decadeby DONALD SCARINCI on November 28, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., which has bee...
Investigatory Power of Congress Under McGrain v. Daughertyby DONALD SCARINCI on November 25, 2019
In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress’ power of...
- Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedoms of Press
- Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
- The Right to Bear Arms
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Due Process
- Eminent Domain
- Rights of Criminal Defendants
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.