Immigrant rights advocates threaten to act to despise the government for challenging the Supreme Court ruling and the resulting orders from other courts.
“That is a problem,” said the judge. “As for the inaccuracy on the website, that has to change and that should be able to change very quickly. … It creates a feeling and a belief that the agency disregards binding appeal decisions and the Supreme Court. “
“There is a cost for not clarifying these things and the plaintiffs have borne most of that cost so far,” added Grimm.
Justice Department attorney Stephen Pezzi said that despite indications to the contrary on DHS websites and in letters to applicants, new DACA applications are “held” and “placed in a bucket.” while DHS officials decide next steps for the DACA program.
Grimm, appointed by President Barack Obama, seemed dissatisfied with that explanation.
“It is a distinction without difference to say that this application has not been denied, has been received, and has been put in a bucket,” said the Greenbelt, Maryland-based judge.
A lawyer for DACA applicants and recipients, John Freedman, said the administration’s communications are sowing confusion.
“That puts applicants in doubt. Questions immigration attorneys. No one knows what’s going on, “said Freedman. “It reinforces the impressions that … the administration, the defendants are not complying with the rule of law.”
While the Supreme Court decision last month rejected the Trump administration’s process to arrive at its 2017 decision to close the DACA program, the judges left open the option for the administration to make a new decision to modify or terminate the program, provided that the interests of DACA recipients and their families are taken into account.
The DACA program, started in 2012, offers quasi-legal status and work permits to so-called Dreamers, individuals who, as children, entered the US illegally or were visa-free.
Trump administration officials have signaled that they are planning a new policy to address the status of the Dreamers, but there are indications that officials may try to link the DACA changes with other changes in immigration policy that will take some time. develop.
It is unclear whether President Donald Trump will seek to change or renew the DACA program as he prepares to take on voters in November. Doing so could win the support of some elements of their political base, but polls have shown broad support for finding a way for Dreamers to remain legally in the United States.
“There is active and ongoing political deliberation at the highest level of the Department of Homeland Security that has not yet run its course,” Pezzi told the judge. Those decisions have yet to be made. … I can’t speak to the agency about what comes next with DACA’s future. “
Friday’s hearing also provided new evidence, for the second day in a row, of communication difficulties between DHS and the Justice Department attorneys defending the agency in court.
Pezzi acknowledged that DHS websites “frankly have outdated and inaccurate information” about the status of DACA.
“That is somewhat unfortunate and it is something that I have raised with the Department of Homeland Security and, frankly, I will continue to raise,” Pezzi said.
After the lawyer again referred to the current statements on the web pages as “regrettable” and said he was “working on” the issue, the judge intervened.
“I can help you with that by giving you a deadline to give them,” Grimm said.
“I would appreciate that, your honor,” replied Pezzi.
The judge also said he wanted to make sure Pezzi was in contact with people with real influence on DHS.
“I don’t want this to be done by an associate or assistant so far down the hierarchical order that they have no real discretionary authority,” Grimm said. “It will be the decision maker or the decision makers.”
Another point of confusion between the Department of Justice and DHS involves the ability of DACA recipients to apply for permission to leave the US temporarily without jeopardizing their status.
Before the Trump administration’s move to reduce DACA, recipients could get “advanced parole,” but that stopped for those on DACA in 2017. Pezzi said he believed the process had been reinstated after the decision by Friday. of the Supreme Court, but that belief was probably wrong.
“To be honest with the court, I need to clarify that I learned earlier today that my understanding of that may not be accurate,” Pezzi said, adding that some requests made in the past few weeks were rejected despite the order of the high court of return to 2017 status quo.
“In the future, however, only in the last few hours has it been solved, at least prospectively,” said the lawyer, who works in the Federal Programs Division of the Civil Division of Justice.
The lack of communication seemed similar to a notable revelation by government attorneys on Thursday that they had made a series of inaccurate claims in litigation over a dispute involving New York travelers’ access to programs like TSA Precheck.
Lawyers for the United States Attorney’s Office in Manhattan said they learned last week that various statements that DHS officials made in the case were false and that those claims were repeated in court reports, that the Justice Department now you are trying to withdraw.
“The defendants deeply regret the previous inaccurate or misleading statements and apologize to the Court and the plaintiffs for the need to make these corrections at this late stage of the litigation,” the government attorneys wrote.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (DN.Y.) called a criminal investigation of DHS officials on Friday for the wrong statements.
In the DACA case, Grimm has not spoken of any such severe action, but said Friday that he is open to considering a plaintiffs’ contempt motion in the case if DHS does not show that it is complying with the Supreme Court decision. . He ordered the attorneys involved in the case for a week to respond to him with a proposal on what information DHS needs to publicize the status of new DACA requests and gave the agency 30 days to correct its website.
However, the judge made it clear that he will not allow the Trump administration to stop indefinitely while crafting a new policy.
“We are in a difficult situation in terms of the next steps,” Grimm said. “There is a point where non-decision is a decision.”
