Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending legal protection for young migrants

The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration cannot shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration programme, which was first established by President Barack Obama.

DACA protects nearly 700,000 people, known as “Dreamers”, from facing immediate deportation from the US.

The Trump administration put forth a plan to disband DACA in an effort to crack down on immigration reform within the country – a promise made by the president when seeking election. But the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday halted that effort.

The 5-4 ruling was made with Chief Justice John G Roberts writing the majority opinion and him being joined by the four liberal justices to protect DACA.

In the majority opinion, the justices did not argue if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may” disband DACA. What it did rule, though, was that the Trump administration failed to currently give adequate justification for disbanding the immigration programme.

“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

He added: “The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted. This is not the case for cutting corners to allow DHS to rely upon reasons absent from its original decision.”

DACA recipients, most of whom were brought to the US illegally as young children, will be able to continue to renew their programme membership, which gives them work authorisation and prevents deportation. The ruling also allows for new DACA recipients to apply for the programme.

Obama first started the programme in 2012, which provided recipients an option to remain in the country but would not give them a path to citizenship. Membership must be renewed by DACA recipients every two years.

But then Trump vowed shortly into his first term as president that he would end DACA, arguing the programme was illegal and unconstitutional. His decision to disband the programme was blocked by federal judges in the lower courts, which pushed the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The justices remained divided over the decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the dissent.

“Today’s decision must be recognised for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” he wrote.