Amy Howe

Nov 8 2018

After federal government filing, 9th Circuit rules in DACA dispute

Three days ago, the federal government went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on a dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to end a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals even before the federal courts of appeals – and in particular the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit – could review the government’s appeal from district court rulings against it. Today the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in the challenge to the termination of the program, known as DACA, which allows some undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation. The ruling means not only that the Supreme Court is now more likely to take up the DACA dispute, but that it could do so this term.

In its filing on Monday, the federal government complained that the 9th Circuit had heard oral argument in the dispute in mid-May but had not yet issued its ruling. Arguing that the Supreme Court would inevitably have to weigh in on the DACA dispute, the government urged the justices to go ahead and do so now, without waiting for the courts of appeals to rule. Otherwise, the government contended, the Supreme Court might not decide the question until next term, which would require the government to keep DACA in place even though it believes the program is not legal.

In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a federal district court’s order requiring the government to keep the DACA program in place. Although the 9th Circuit’s ruling went against the government, the decision likely helped the government’s cause at the Supreme Court, because the justices rarely grant petitions for review before the courts of appeals have ruled; the justices prefer to have the benefit of those courts’ opinions, even if they often do not follow them.

The challengers’ response to the government’s petition is currently due on December 5. Assuming that the court does not extend that deadline, the justices could announce as soon as mid-January whether they will take up the dispute.

This post was also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
  • Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies