Federal Judge Orders Reopening of DACA

A District of Columbia federal judge has overruled the Trump administration’s effort to end the popular Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, saying that the government has to continue the Obama-era program and accept new applications.

U.S. District Judge John Bates on Tuesday called the government’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ‘‘virtually unexplained’’ and therefore ‘‘unlawful.’’ However, the ruling won’t take effect for another 90 days, giving the Department of Homeland Security a chance to provide more solid reasoning for ending the program, The Boston Globe writes.

As the two other rulings before, Bates concluded that the decision to wind-down DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” since Homeland Security failed to “adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.”

The judge also said the government had provided “meager legal reasoning” to support its decision.

‘‘Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action,’’ Bates wrote.

In response to the ruling, the Justice Department said it stands by its original reasoning, calling DACA an “unlawful circumvention of Congress,” and that it intends to continue making its case to the courts.

“The Department of Homeland Security therefore acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner,” spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement. “Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”

Previously, federal judges in California and New York blocked the Trump administration’s plans to phase out the program, ordering it to renew work permits for immigrants enrolled in DACA.

The administration said that it decided to end the program because Texas and other states had threatened to sue over it, but Bates concluded that that argument “was so implausible that it fails even under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard.”