They found the bullets in its own words, from a Supreme Court decision last June, when he joined four court liberals to cast a decisive vote against the Trump administration's plan to add a question of citizenship in the census of 2020.  Removing a page from Roberts' decision binding the rationale for the census question, new challengers suggest the administration's reasons for rescuing the Deended Action for program Childhood Arrivals are not "real" or "real." Instead, they argue, using the language from the census case, that the reasons are "pretextual" and would require justices "to present a naiveté" to buy what the administration is selling.
Roberts signed an interest in flouting predictions of a partisan split on a bench consisting of five Republican-designated Republicans and four Democrats nominated in a more polarized America.
Advocates for DACA should lose familiarity with the ideological division if they win at least a fifth vote in the case, affecting nearly 700,000 immigrant children trying to remain in the US.
This is a very exciting battle. Roberts sits at the helm of a conservative court and his broader record over the years will suggest sympathy for the Trump administration's efforts on immigration. Further, when the court heard a related dispute in 2016 – with undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizens – Roberts was skeptical of a plan by then-President Barack Obama to postpone their elimination.
The new case comes as President Donald Trump's vast scale moves to immigration into the stanch, from a proposed wall on the southern border of America to lift restrictions on asylum seekers in increasing rates. arrests and faster deportations.
The intense political consequences of any DACA leadership add to the pressure on Roberts, given his conflicts with Trump and the time in the middle of a presidential election.
The chief justice, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2005, was generally postponed on administrative initiatives, and he wrote the 2017 decision advocating a third version of Trump's travel ban, which was decided along with the familiar 5-4 lines.
In his defense, the Trump administration used a different language from the census decision that its lawyers think would appeal to the chief justice's decision to suspend the executive branch.
Last session of the Supreme Court, in the months before his surprise ruling against the citizenship question in the 2020 census, Roberts laid down several markers that sought to demonstrate the independence of justices from presidential politics.
The most prominent example occurred after a lower court judge in California was preliminarily ruled against a Trump asylum policy and the President aided him as an "Obama judge." Roberts issued a statement saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level at best do the right to those who appear before them. " 19659002] Trump fired back on Twitter, saying, "Sorry Chief Justice Roberts, but you really have 'Obama judges, & # 39; and they have a different perspective than people charged with the safety of our country." " In a subsequent tweet, Trump, who strongly criticized Roberts in 2012 when he voted to uphold the Obama-sponsored Affordable Care Act, added the immigration scene, "We need protection and security – the decisions this makes our country safe! dangerous and unskilled! "
Regardless of whether they can persuade Roberts' vote, the lawyers defending DACA do not estimate other possibilities in the justices, including Trump's most recent appointment, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Echoes of the 2020 census case
 The case before the justices does not test the constitutionality of the Obama-era program to protect uninsured immigrants who came to the US as children from abortion but in rather than the way in which Trump administration officials continue.
The main legal issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security met the procedural requirements as it announced in 2017 that it would terminate DACA. Because disputes are centered on the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits agencies from acting in an "arbitrary" or "capricious" manner as they change policy, the new case directly addresses issues raised in the citizenship question in the census. 19659002] Roberts wrote the opinion that refused to increase the citizenship query, which opponents said would drive responses to minority communities, with the possibility of voting Democrats. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the question was needed to help the Department of Justice implement the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Roberts ended Ross's acknowledgment of the justification.
The challenges of the Trump administration in DACA are similar in that the administration is not straightforward. The consolidated cases were brought by California, New York and other Democratic-led states, including the University of California Regents and immigrant rights groups.
Theodore Olson, a well-known conservative lawyer representing youth benefiting from the DACA program, acknowledged that the administration would have the authority to rescue DACA but said the step should be accompanied by "reasoning. deciding. "
"DACA recipients, their communities, and the public deserve a rationale for the government's decision supported by a complete administrative record," Olson wrote in a court filing. "They received nothing."
Olson also took one of the most memorable lines from the opinion of Roberts's census case as he asserted that the administration acted as if changing DHS policy would not hurt DACA recipients in workforce or reverberate nationwide: "This Court is not required to show (such) naiveté. & # 39;"
Attorney Robert Long, lead University of California Regent, cited Roberts' census opinion as he referred to "disturbing clues that the government's stated reasons for rescuing DACA were not the true reasons for its decision."
While US Solicitor General Noel Francisco calculated the arguments in his filings, he seems to have drawn lines from Roberts' census opinion, in the case of Department of Commerce v. New York. He said that agency officials have a wide latitude to make policy choices, as long as they don't "review relevant data" and provide "a rational connection between the facts found and selectively selected.
"DHS's decision here could easily pass that test on many legal and policy issues," Francisco wrote, adding in his final, filing on October 28, that "there is no basis to think that factors offered by either Secretary were predetermined. "
How the DACA decision occurred
The collapse of DACA was announced in September 2017. Elaine Duke, then acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said DACA was unlawfully established and likely to be harmed by federal courts.
Duke noted that lower courts had previously doubted the guilt of a related program, Deended Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Resident. cked implementation of the DAPA, suggesting that Obama overstep his authority when he proposed suspension of repeal for some paperless parents. But judges have not ruled on the constitutional merits of the challenge brought by Texas and other Republican-led states, and Supreme Court justices have died in the wake of a dispute.
When Kirstjen Nielsen was appointed secretary of Homeland Security last year, he echoed the Duke memo and stated that he was both insufficiently confident of DACA's legality to enforce it. He added an additional basis, including that he believed that any broadscale deferral of deportation should be a matter for Congress, not an agency.
In 2016, when the Supreme Court considered the DAPA case, Roberts beat the Obama administration attorney in the lectern with questions and declared the deferral policy "a pretty significant departure" from the previous executive branch of practice. Roberts suggested the rationale for the Obama administration would allow a president to postpone deportation for a broad range of undocumented immigrants.
At this time, two months after the death of Judge Antonin Scalia, the court had only eight members. It ended the deadlocking, 4-4, in the case of United States v. Texas. This means that national policy is not set but the preliminary decision of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which prevents the DAPA program from being implemented, is upheld.
The Supreme Court continued to operate with eight justices for one year. When Trump came into office, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, to succeed Scalia, in 2017, and then Kavanaugh, to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018.
Those distinctive Trumps have deep roots which are conservative records and may be inclined to uphold The Trump administration's efforts to dissolve DACA. Unlike their other colleagues, they were not heard in the 2016 DAPA case.
The Kavanaugh pitch
Perhaps to persuade Kavanaugh, lawyer Olson cited Kavanaugh's opinion in 2014 from his tenure in a lower court appeal while arguing. Olson said the Department of Homeland Security failed to weigh the potential costs of dissolving DACA.
Kavanaugh's opinion, written not dissimilar to an environmental case, rejected what he described as a "blind approach" to an air quality program.
Kavanaugh wrote that agencies should consider both the benefits and costs before making a policy decision. "That is common sense and good government practice," he said in the case of 2014.
Through a nod to Kavanaugh's earlier position, Olson argued that the administration had failed to consider any potential hardship to DACA recipients or costs to the country. if the deferred policy ends.
"Data from shortly before Secretary Duke's memorandum showed that more than 90 percent of DACA recipients were then employed," Olson wrote in his brief. "And research from 2017 estimates that ending DACA would cost the federal government $ 60 billion in lost revenue and eliminate $ 215 billion from the economy in lost GDP."
Solicitor General Francisco responded by writing that cost analysis "would serve as a minor purpose where, as here, the relevant costs of maintaining the policy would not only be financial, but damage the trust of public to DHS and the administration of the law, as well as the potential disruption of the agency's important work. "
In general, Francisco argued that the administration" intended to send a strong and consistent message that illegal immigration is not allowed. Policies like DACA clearly undermine the clarity of that message. "