Supreme Court Correctly Rules Administration Illegally Rescinded DACA

Statement by Ken Kimmell, President, Union of Concerned Scientists

Published Jun 18, 2020

WASHINGTON (June 18, 2020)—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration illegally rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), a program that allowed about 800,000 people who were brought to the United States as children to remain in the country.

Below is a statement by Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by striking down the administration’s plan to rescind DACA. It’s common knowledge that the administration makes decisions without providing valid justifications. In this case, the Supreme Court told the administration that an agency, the Department of Homeland Security, cannot rush to a predetermined political outcome, and it should have considered how its decision would affect people—namely all the people who have relied on DACA.

“The administration’s decision to end DACA violated the principles of justice that should be the basis of our immigration policy. It is simply inhumane to send young people who were brought to this country as children back to their parents’ home countries, especially when they may have never known that country or speak its language. The prospect alone created a climate of fear and served no just end.

“These young people are our future. They serve in the military and are current and future doctors, scientists, artists, social workers, journalists and teachers. It’s still up to Congress to come up with a plan to protect them over the long term because the administration may come back with a 'justified' plan and the issue could wind up back in the courts.

“This decision follows closely on the heels of another blow to the Trump administration’s legal strategy, namely an attempt to exclude people from the protections of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act based on sexual orientation or gender identification. In these two decisions, we see the benefits of checks and balances that come from an independent judiciary.”