Supreme Court won't hear Trump bid to end DACA program

Fact check: Trump's misleading DACA boast
Fact check: Trump's misleading DACA boast

    JUST WATCHED

    Fact check: Trump's misleading DACA boast

MUST WATCH

Fact check: Trump's misleading DACA boast 03:53

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for now, meaning participants will still be able to renew their status.

The move will also lessen pressure on Congress to act on a permanent solution for DACA and its roughly 700,000 participants -- undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children.
Originally, President Donald Trump had terminated DACA but allowed a six-month grace period for anyone with status expiring in that window to renew. After that date, March 5, any DACA recipient whose status expired would no longer be able to receive protections.
Monday's action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration's effort to end it.
    At issue is a ruling by federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who blocked the plan to end DACA and held that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. The action means the case will continue going through the lower courts.
    Alsup said a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy."
    "Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States," he wrote.
    The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has generally allowed nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration actions from lower court judges under this President to stand, meaning the DACA program could be spared a year or more until the Supreme Court could take up the case in next year's term, given the likely realities of the calendar.
    President Donald Trump blasted the 9th Circuit Monday.
    "You know, we tried to get it moved quickly 'cause we'd like to help DACA. I think everybody in this room wants to help with DACA, but the Supreme Court just ruled that it has to go through the normal channels, so it's going back in," Trump told a group of state governors at the White House. "There won't be any surprise. I mean, it's really sad when every single case filed against us -- this is in the 9th Circuit -- we lose, we lose, we lose, and then we do fine in the Supreme Court. But what does that tell you about our court system? It's a very, very sad thing. So DACA's going back, and we'll see what happens from there."
    Sen. Durbin tells story of Chloe Kim
    Sen. Durbin tells story of Chloe Kim

      JUST WATCHED

      Sen. Durbin tells story of Chloe Kim

    MUST WATCH

    Sen. Durbin tells story of Chloe Kim 01:21
    The White House said it was disappointed in the ruling.
    "The DACA program -- which provides work permits and myriad government benefits to illegal immigrants en masse -- is clearly unlawful," said spokesman Raj Shah. "The district judge's decision to unilaterally re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process."
    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, one of the 17 challenging Trump's move to end DACA, called the ruling a "win," but added "it also does not change the fact that we need a permanent solution to preserve DACA and protect Dreamers."
    Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court was an uphill climb, given it came before the 9th Circuit ruled.
    "While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA," O'Malley said. "We will continue to defend DHS's lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner."
    University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don't weigh in at this stage.
    "The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure," Vladeck said.