Judge rules that lawsuit against Trump DACA ban can go forward

A lawsuit brought by several states against the Trump administration's effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) can go foward, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

The suit claims that DACA protections should be maintained for DREAMers because the decision to end it was "racially motivated." The judge said that was impossible to prove but said Trump statements as a candidate and as president that reveal, in his opinion, a racial bias, could be used.

The Hill:

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled in New York that the lawsuit could move forward, but narrowed the scope of the legal action, Bloomberg News reported

He said the plaintiffs — which include New York State, the District of Columbia and 15 state attorneys general — could proceed with a claim that Trump's decision to rescind the Obama-era program was racially motivated and was intended to unlawfully target Latinos. 

Garaufis, an appointee of former President Clinton, previously issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from moving forward with deportations of immigrants brought to the country illegally as children, known as "Dreamers," who were offered protections under DACA.

The Trump administration argued, however, that the lawsuit — particularly the claim that the president's actions were racially motivated — should be thrown out, because there was no evidence to prove it.

The plaintiffs maintained that Trump's statements about Mexicans on the campaign trail and in the White House amount to proof that he acted with hostility toward minority groups.

"Although the use of racial slurs, epithets, or other racially charged language does not violate equal protection, it can be evidence that official action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory purposes," Garaufis wrote in his ruling, according to Bloomberg.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) quickly praised the ruling Thursday.

"We look forward to continuing our litigation to protect Dreamers, along with the businesses and institutions they contribute to every day in New York and across the country," he tweeted.

There is no standard legal definition for what constitutes a "racial slur" or "racially charged language - whatever the hell that means. But the judge is going to allow the plaintiffs to make their case anyway.

Do you sense that the deck is kind of stacked against the government in this case?

The bottom line issue is who gets to decide which illegal aliens can stay and which should go? President Obama believed he could decide the issue for millions of illegal alien children based on executive branch powers of selective prosecution. He would simply choose not to prosecute millions DREAMers even though they are breaking the law by being here.

Ideally, Congress should decide the issue. Trump gave Congress 6 months to come up with a solution and they failed. Hence, Trump wants to enforce his own idea of selective prosecution and deport the children of illegal aliens who are in the country illegally.

When you figure out why it's legal for one president to selectively enforce the law regarding one group of law breakers while another president is not granted the same power. let me know.


If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com