DACA participants breathe a sigh of relief after SCOTUS ruling; civil rights groups urge legislative solution

University of California students traveled to Washington to support DACA.

The US Supreme Court narrowly ruled against Donald Trump on Thursday in his attempt to overturn the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA instituted by President Barack Obama that allowed participants to remain in the US.

The ruling will protect hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who have been shielded from deportation and allowed to receive work permits under the program. There were about 700,000 DACA recipients at the time Trump ordered the program to wind down in September 2017.

For the Asian American community, this means at least 16,000 Asian American DACA recipients can continue to go to school and work — some of whom are healthcare and other essential workers on the frontlines fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Some estimates say that about 120,000 AAPI are eligible for the program.

For the 1.5 million people in this country who live with a DACA recipient, it means relief that their family members can continue to stay in the country they call home without fear and constant threats of deportation.

"We applaud the Supreme Court for stating that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to end DACA is 'arbitrary and capricious' and its decision to allow the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to continue for the time being," said Asian American Advancing Justice in a press release.  

"DACA has positively changed the lives of more than 800,000 young people in this country, allowing them to live temporarily without fear, and pursue their academic and career goals," the legal advocacy group said.


It has been eight years since  the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Since its inception in 2012, DACA has granted protections to nearly 700,000 undocumented youth who were brought to this country as children, allowing them to stay and work in the United States without fear of deportation. The program was rescinded in September 2017 by the Trump Administration and the Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether the program can remain in place.

The ruling on DACA was the third major decision that went against the Trump administration this week. Besides DACA, the justices upheld the civil rights of LGBTQ community and refused to hear efforts to overturn the sanctuary policies adopted by cities and states to protect their immigrant communities.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts was the deciding the decision joinging the court’s liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. He also authored the 5-4 opinion limiting the ruling to procedural inadequacies. Roberts reasoned that the Trump administration’s termination of the program was “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of federal law that governs administrative procedure.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern,’” Roberts wrote.

“We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients,” Roberts added. “That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”

SCREEN CAPTURE / TWITTER / MSNBC

DACA participants gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court after today's ruling and changed: "Home is here!"

California was one of the states that challenged the DOJ's case against DACA. “Today’s decision is an important victory, for now, for the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers — including over 200,000 Californians — who contribute deeply to their communities each day," said Gov. Gavin Newsom. "They are our neighbors, our coworkers and our friends, and in California, we will continue to have their backs.

“We need a permanent solution for undocumented Californians and acknowledge that a pathway to citizenship is not enough. This moment reminds us we are confronting the systemic injustice and racism that exists within our nation and institutions. We will fight for everyone to be treated with dignity and respect.”

While the Thursday ruling gives a temporary reprieve for DACA, Robert's narrow ruling opens the door for the Trump administration to try to dismantle the program by presenting a better argument.

"The Supreme Court’s refusal provides a reprieve for DACA recipients, but it by no means takes away the urgent need for Congress to come up with a legislative solution," said the ACLU.

If the DOJ pursues another argument to dismantle DACA, it would take many months and most likely would not appear before SCOTUS until well after the November elections.

“The courts and the American people agree: It’s time for President Trump and Stephen Miller to end their crusade against Dreamers and immigrants writ large," said Andrea Flores, the ACLU's deputy director of immigration policy. "This decision allows DACA recipients to live and work without the daily fear of deportation, and confirms what we have always known: America is their home.

“Today, we celebrate but know that the fight is not over. For nearly three years, DACA recipients have lived in a legal limbo brought on by the Trump administration. The House of Representatives has already passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, and it is incumbent upon the Senate to do the same to permanently protect Dreamers. We won’t rest until Dreamers can.”

What's being said about the Supreme Court's DACA ruling:

Former Vice President Joe Biden
“The Supreme Court’s ruling today is a victory made possible by the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who bravely stood up and refused to be ignored. As President, I will immediately work to make it permanent by sending a bill to Congress on day one of my Administration.”

Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, chair of the Congressional APA Caucus
"... when he rushed to rescind DACA as part of a xenophobic political agenda, Donald Trump injected fear into thousands of families around the country. American children of Dreamer parents were left to worry if their parents would come home at the end of the day, or if this was the day that Donald Trump’s deportation force would come for them. And, just like with his child prison camps, the cruelty was intentional. Donald Trump and Stephen Miller thought that if they were vicious enough to the immigrants already here, it would deter others. But fortunately, the Supreme Court has rejected this hateful approach to governing. Their decision today, while leaving the door open to a future attempt by the President, makes clear that he cannot simply disregard the needs and lives of immigrants.

“But that does not mean our work is done. Dreamers are still vulnerable to a future attack on DACA and that is why it is more important than ever that the Senate follow this decision by finally voting on H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise Act. This bill, which overwhelmingly passed the House and is supported throughout the country, would put an end to the uncertainty and worrying among Dreamers and individuals with temporary protected status (TPS). It would affirm what we all know, that they are as American as you or I and that tearing them from their homes simply because they were born somewhere else is un-American and cruel."

APALA National President and NEA Appointee Monica Thammarath
“We join DACA recipients across the nation, who refuse to trade their safety and well-being for the criminalization of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, to call for justice for Black lives, and that includes Black immigrants and Black DACA recipients. While this decision will provide much needed relief for immigrants, we must remember that Black immigrants are more likely to be deported than non-Black immigrants because of disproportionate policing. We demand that (1) the government reallocate money in our communities to reinvest in housing, education, economic support, climate justice, healthcare, and mental health services, (2) the federal government defund Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and (3) Trump to resign.”

South Asian Americans Leading Together executive director Lakshmi Sridaran
“Although it is conditional, today’s victory is welcome at a time when the war on Black communities feels endless ... It is a reminder that our work is not done, but together we can win. We have to keep demanding solutions that benefit us all - including pushing for a permanent, legislative solution that ensures a path to citizenship for all immigrants, defunding Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the police, and investing in communities, which are pillars of the Movement for Black Lives policy agenda.”

North American Punjabi Association (NAPA) executive director Satnam Singh Chahal
“Court’s decision is being welcomed in the immigrant’s community throughout the United States and is seen as a blow to a central campaign promise from Trump and a likely topic for the 2020 presidential election.”

Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum
“Today, DACA recipients and their families can breathe a sigh of relief. Immigrants contribute greatly to our country, including serving on the front lines in combating the COVID-19 pandemic, and none should live in fear of deportation. ... Despite being able to work and reside in the United States, DACA recipients cannot access many of the affordable health care options, provided by the Affordable Care Act. During a time when access to health care is especially critical, this restriction not only jeopardizes DACA recipients’ health, but also increases the risk to their families, communities and public health for all. The Court’s ruling does not provide a permanent fix. We urge that Congress work to find a permanent solution that provides a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants who came to this country as children.”

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,, President Vanita Gupta
“We commend the Supreme Court’s decision finding President Trump’s rescission of DACA was unlawful. We fully support the diverse group of nearly 700,000 young immigrants who are instrumental to our society, and we are proud of their many contributions to make this country a better place.

“However, the fight is not over. We must continue to follow the lead of Dreamers and other advocates fighting for a lasting solution that protects DACA recipients and their families. Whether it is the more than 25,000 Dreamers who are health care workers keeping us safe during the pandemic, or the Dreamers marching in solidarity for justice to protest anti-Black racism, DACA recipients are here to stay. As we reimagine the kind of America we want to become, and as we fight to make our country stronger and more just, we should look to Dreamers. We commit to fighting alongside them and ensuring Congress acts immediately so that DACA recipients can finally live in peace and security.

Organization of Chinese Associations–Asian Pacific American Advocates -  Executive Director Rita Pin Ahrens
“On behalf of the 120,000 DACA-eligible Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, we are heartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the will of the people and protect young immigrants ... While the Supreme Court decision does not protect DACA forever, it does provide a reprieve for all of the communities waiting with bated breath. To them, we say: we will keep fighting for you, for DACA, and for the human rights of all immigrants.”

Southeast Asian Refugee Action Center, excutive director Quyen Dinh 

“Undocumented immigrants are part of the American tapestry and must be afforded the same protections as any other American, especially during this pandemic, where immigrants often serve as essential workers. While we celebrate this important decision, we recognize that our movement must continue to fight for all Americans during this tumultuous time by defunding the police force funneling immigrants into deportation proceedings, providing a permanent pathway to citizenship for all immigrants, and ending deportations for Southeast Asians and other immigrant communities.”

Supreme Court rules 1964 Civil Rights Law applies to LGBTQ+ people

Activists stand in front of the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers from job discrimination in a trio of cases consolidated in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. 

“For the past few weeks, the LGBTQ+ community has been fearfully awaiting this decision. Today, we celebrate this historic ruling and the progress we have made toward equality under the law. The Supreme Court has officially affirmed that LGBTQ+ Americans are protected from discrimination in the workplace," said Rep. Mark Takano, who in 2012 became the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress.

In the surprise decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"Today," Gorsuch said, "we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear." He found such discrimination is barred by the language in the 1964 law that bans discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauded the Supreme Court for affirming the rights of LGBTQ individuals, and that they cannot be discriminated against with respect to their employment based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

“NAPABA has and will continue to be supportive of LGBTQ equality,” said Bonnie Lee Wolf, President of NAPABA. “We recognize that there are legal, cultural and social issues specific to the LGBTQ community. We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognizes that discriminatory employment practices due to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity have no place in the workplace."

“The laws have a significant impact on the Asian Americans community because so many of us are LGBTQ.” said Glenn D. Magpantay, Executive Director of the National Queer APIA. 

In a statement, the NQAPIA said: "This is a watershed moment for the LGBTQ community. The decision will directly impact 1 in 3 (or 5.2 Million) Asian Americans who live in one of 30 states and are at risk of being fired, refused housing or denied services simply because they are LGBT."

AAPIs are the nation’s fastest growing racial group in the United States today. A survey by Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund shows that a majority of Asian Americans support laws protecting gaiy and transgender people from iscrimination in employment, housing and pubilc accommodations.

The High Court's decision is a setback for the Trump administration, which sided with the employers in these cases, and has used its rule-making power to issue new directives that take away previous protections for transgender individuals.

“Attacks by President Trump and his administration on LGBTQ+ rights are persistent," added Takano. "They have threatened the safety, health, and financial well-being of our community by rolling back non-discrimination protections in healthcare, employment, housing, adoption, education, and the list goes on. Under the guise of religious liberty, the Trump Administration has sanctioned discrimination against a community that already suffers disproportionately from high levels of poverty, lack of access to healthcare, homelessness, and violence."

Speaking to reporters, Trump said of the ruling: "They've ruled and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court." He called the opinion "very powerful,"

Supreme Court blocks citizenship question in US Census

Before the Supreme Court released it's decision Thursday morningn, opponents of the Census citizenship question protested in front of the court in Washington DC.

ASAM NEWS & VIEWS FROM THE EDGE

The US Supreme Court Thursday (June 27) blocked the Trump administration from including a citizenship question in the 2020 census, reports the Mercury News.
Asian Americans and Hispanics had argued the question was included specifically to discourage immigrants from filling out the census. The Census is used to determine federal funding for various communities.

The victory, however, for the plaintiffs in the case may be only temporary. The June 30 printing deadline for the Census could be extended by the Census Bureau, thus giving the Trump administration more time to explain the question and get it back onto the census form.

However, NBC News reports its unlikely the Commerce Department will have enough time to make that happen. Nevertheless, Trump, tweeting from the G-20 Summit in Japan asked White House lawyers to ask for a delay in the Census.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority in the ruling. However, he joined the conservative majority on the court in stating the citizenship question, by itself, is not unconstitutional.

In recent weeks, evidence surfaced that the Trump administration specifically designed the question to lead to an under count of minorities. Republicans have largely become a party of Whites. Under counting minorities could lead to a reduction of electoral college votes for Democratic-leaning districts.

“We are gratified that the Court saw through the pretext offered by the Commerce Department regarding the need for the citizenship question,” said John Yang, President and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice. “We are confident that the evidence will demonstrate that the Commerce Department wanted the inclusion of this question for improper, discriminatory reasons. We believe that the clock is running out and that the Commerce Department should abandon its efforts to include a citizenship question for Census 2020.”

Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund both sued to block the question based on the new evidence. Others joined in support.

“We applaud the Supreme Court for upholding the sanctity of the census,” said Sung Yeon Choimorrow , executive director of National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum. “In a political climate where citizenship questions have separated families and caused an uptick in racial profiling across the country, this question would have intimidated many immigrant communities from participating. Our communities deserve better from our government.”

New American Leaders, a non-partisan group dedicated to bringing immigrants into the political process joined in supporting the decision.

“By rejecting the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, the Supreme Court recognized what we already knew—that Trump’s request was driven by nothing but bigotry, discrimination and a brazen attempt to gerrymander districts to maintain the status quo,” said founder and president Sayu Bhojwani, who was born in India. “Their decision means that people of color, immigrants and New Americans will have their voices heard and communities represented in 2020 and beyond.”

AALDEF executive director Margaret Fung said: “We are glad that the Supreme Court agreed with what AALDEF and NAPABA asserted in our joint amicus brief opposing the census citizenship question: that ‘the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived.’ The government never intended to better enforce the VRA, as reflected in the fact that this administration has not brought any VRA enforcement actions. Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in this country and the largest segment of new immigrants. We will continue the fight to ensure that everyone in our country is properly counted in the 2020 Census and that our community receives its fair share of resources and representation.”

NAPABA President Daniel Sakaguchi said: “We are pleased that the Court ultimately rejected the Department of Commerce’s argument to include the citizenship question as pretextual and ‘contrived.’ Permitting the question to be added would have resulted in a significant undercount of immigrants and communities of color, leading to discriminatory cutbacks in resources and underrepresentation in Congress, in state houses, and in local government. The courts should continue to discredit the post-hoc reasoning of the Administration in its attempts to stop a fair and accurate count. It is incumbent on community leaders and attorneys to ensure that everyone is counted as part of 2020 Census.”

The Leadership Conference Education Fund, also cheered the ruling, but said the fight is not over.

” The specter of the question has heightened fear and mistrust in communities and discouraged some from participating in the census. All hands are on deck to ensure everyone is counted,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO and former head of the Civil Rights division in the Justice Department under the Obama administration.

In San Francisco, Chinese for Affirmative Action today also emphasized the community must mobilize to encourage full participation in the census.

“CAA will work closely with the City of San Francisco to ensure that all hard-to-count communities are receiving accurate and reliable information about the Census to dispel fear and motivate participation,” says Hong Mei Pang, Director of Advocacy at CAA. “We will ensure that our communities are receiving their fair share of resources and political representation, strengthen the safeguards available for immigrants, subvert panic and restore power to marginalized communities through a successful Census in 2020.”

“The inclusion of a citizenship questioned would have jeopardized our ability to have an accurate census count and ensure adequate funding for vital programs like Community Development Block Grants, housing vouchers, Medicaid, highway planning construction, and new schools. For every person that is not counted, a city could lose $2000 per person. An undercount would also result in states with large immigrant and minority populations such as California, New York, and Texas losing representation in Congress," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA.

“Those things are still at stake if the Census Bureau finds another way to justify the inclusion of the citizenship question before they print the 2020 Census, so we must continue to remain vigilant."

__________________________________________________________________

SCOTUS finally overturns infamous Korematsu ruling

ONE OF THE WORST decisions made by the Supreme Court was revoked in the Supreme Court decision rendered today in regards to the Donald Trump Muslim ban.

In the June 26 ruling by the conservative majority and in the dissent by the liberal minority, 1944's  ruling that justified the interment of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, Korematsu v. United States, was repudiated.

RELATED: A divided Supreme Court upholds Muslm ban

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent the “stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu v. United States,” 

In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind … Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.”…This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision apparently took offense and addressed Sotomayor's inference that Trump’s travel ban was the same thing as the internment of Japanese Americans.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.

The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

With that, Roberts' Court formally overturned one of the most shameful decisions rendered by the High Court.

Korematsu was decided after Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American of San Leandro, Calif., refused to relocate to an internment camp. U.S. officials arrested him convicted him for refusing to comply. He eventually fought his conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court — but the Court, in 1944, ruled that Korematsu was violated the executive order 9066 signed by President Frankly Roosevelt and the U.S. acted lawfully in attempting to intern not just him but other Japanese Americans.

Although Korematsu died in 2005, in 2011, the Justice Department issued a formal "confession of error" in the his case, acknowledging that government lawyers lied about the severity of the security threat posed by Japanese Americans.

Ironically, the confession was ordered by the acting solicitor general at the time, Neal Katyal, who represented the challengers to the Muslim ban.

Yesterday (June 26) Korematsu's daughter, Karen Korematsu, issued this statement:

"Yet again, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Muslim travel ban is unjust and singles out individuals due to the religion they practice, similar to Execudtive Order 9066 that unconstitutionally imprisoned my father due to his Japanese ancestry.

"In Korematsu v. United States, the Court ruled against my father, a decision that constitutional scholars, on both sides of the aisle, have continued to criticize. Although the Court overruled my father's case today,  it only has substituted one injustice for another.  

"This decision motivates me more to continue my work as Executive Director of the Fred. T. Korematsu Institute to educate, advocate and protect our civil liberties for all."

____________________________________________________________________________