The Supreme Court Will Address DACA. What Will Follow?

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the Trump administration’s efforts to end the immigration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The status of DACA recipients has been in limbo for over two years amidst administration actions and court injunctions.

What Is DACA?

After Congress failed in its attempts to pass a bill dealing with undocumented immigrant minors,1 then-President Obama created DACA in the run-up to his reelection campaign in 2012.2 The program deferred deportation for undocumented individuals who arrived in “the U.S. before their 16th birthday, were under age 31, had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007,”3 had not committed serious crimes, and met educational or military service requirements.4 Considered a temporary fix awaiting congressional immigration reform, DACA allowed for infinite renewals of two-year deferrals.5

How Did DACA Reach the Supreme Court?

The Trump administration decided not to defend DACA in a possible court case,6 arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to establish the policy—a claim that opponents characterized as a misread of the law, open to judicial review.7 These opponents assert that the policy change did not meet federal standards and that the Trump administration violated due process and “the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus.”8 Lower courts agreed and left the law temporarily in place.9 After repeated requests, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.10

The Supreme Court must decide if courts can review the policy change and if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made the change lawfully.11 The administration argues that their agencies have the necessary discretion (so courts cannot intervene) and that their legitimate rationale included doubts about DACA’s legality12 absent congressional authorization.13 DHS also claims that DACA encourages further illegal immigration, because it undercuts the “ability to send ‘a message that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws.’”14

Where Does DACA Stand Now?

Currently, DHS is not accepting new DACA applications, but it is continuing to process renewals.15 As of June 2019, there were approximately 660,880 active DACA recipients.16

What’s Next for DACA?

DACA activists have begun a 230-mile march from New York City to the Supreme Court,17 highlighting the significant personal stakes they want the Court to consider.18 Their allies cite DACA’s high polling approval,19 economic benefits,20 and support from an array of large businesses.21 Their opponents argue that the executive order is an executive overreach,22 and they want a legislative compromise that includes increased border security and limits to further immigration.23 President Trump has hinted at a possible deal,24 depending on the Court hearing. The justices’ decision will likely come in June 2020.

VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?

READ: Legal analysis of the DACA case on SCOTUSblog

For further reading on DACA, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

  1. How present are recent immigrants in your school and community?
  2. Do you think the DACA policy encourages other immigrants to enter the United States illegally?
  3. Should DACA limit the number of deferrals that recipients can access? Should recipients be able to achieve lawful permanent resident or citizen status?
  4. Should the fate of DACA be determined on its own, or should it be part of a larger set of immigration reforms? If the latter, what reforms are necessary?
  5. Should a president be able to bypass Congress with an executive order to establish an immigration program like DACA, or is that an overreach (an abuse of power)?
Featured Image Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images, via
[1] American Immigration Council:
[2] NBC News:
[3] Department of Homeland Security:
[4] Ibid.
[5] NBC News:
[6] PBS NewsHour:
[7] Oyez:
[8] Ibid.
[9] Reuters:
[10] NBC News:
[11] Oyez:
[12] CNN:
[13] NBC News:
[14] Ibid.
[15] Department of Homeland Security:
[16] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:
[17] New York Daily News:
[18] Vox:
[19] Washington Post:
[20] PBS NewsHour:
[21] CNBC:
[22] Fox News:
[23] Fortune:
[24] Washington Post:


President Trump Seeks to Further Reduce U.S. Military Presence in Syria

American soldier faces ISIS fighters in SyriaOn October 6, 2019, President Trump made the surprising announcement that he would pull out most of the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria, where the United States has been working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and to repel Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Apparently, this announcement was made without the knowledge of most of President Trump’s cabinet, including the State Department.1

The Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, when government forces violently suppressed protesters who were calling for Assad to step down. The conflict has been deadly and devastating, resulting in six million Syrian refugees and another six million citizens internally displaced (out of a population of around 18 million people).2 The war has allowed for extremist groups, including ISIS, to gain power in the region; since 2014, the United States has partnered with the SDF to fight extremists and Assad’s forces.

However, Turkey—a NATO ally that is also fighting against Assad—has long considered the Kurds on their border to be a threat and have promised strikes against them in the last few months.3 The Kurds have benefited greatly from the partnership with the United States, which has allowed the formerly oppressed minority group to establish Kurdish schools and set policies that represent their interests.

Removing U.S. troops would allow Turkish forces to control the area in northeastern Syria along the Turkish and Iranian border, which is currently held by U.S. and SDF forces. Turkey presently claims that its goals include removing Kurdish forces from the area and resettling Syrian refugees along the border.

Throughout the week of October 6, U.S. troops have pulled back from the Turkish border. Increased violence in the region began almost immediately after President Trump’s announcement, and on October 9, the Turkish military fired shots in Syria. In response, the Kurdish authorities stated, “We call upon our people, of all ethnic groups, to move toward areas close to the border with Turkey to carry out acts of resistance.”4 ISIS suicide bombers have also attacked Kurdish positions in the Syrian city of Raqqa.5

President Trump’s withdrawal announcement met backlash from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong Trump ally, calling the move “short-sighted and irresponsible.”6 Critics argue that Turkey is planning on diluting the power of the Kurds in their historic homeland by resettling millions of ethnic Syrians in the area.7

In order to keep Turkish forces from attacking Kurdish allied forces and the Kurdish population in the area, President Trump tweeted that he would, “totally destroy and obliterate” Turkey’s economy if they did anything “off-limits” after the United States pulls out. The Trump administration has said that the Kurdish alliance is complete and that the Kurds are strong fighters, “but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to [fight against ISIS].” President Trump indicated that it is time for the United States to remove itself from the conflict and bring troops home.8

Discussion Questions

  • What have you heard about the Syrian civil war?
  • Should the United States continue to keep troops in Syria? Why or why not?
  • How, if at all, should the United States support the Kurds in Syria?
  • Does the United States have a responsibility to ensure that its transition out of the region goes smoothly? Why or why not?
  • What should be the role of the United States in protecting oppressed groups around the world?


Featured Image Credit: Reuters
[1] New York Times:
[2] United States Institute of Peace:
[3] Washington Post:
[4] Fox News:
[5] CNN:
[6] CNN:
[7] The Atlantic:
[8] New York Times:


Understanding the Current Impeachment Inquiry

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters with microphonesIn late September 2019, it was revealed that an officer at the Central Intelligence Agency filed an official complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, alleging that President Trump had engaged in an inappropriate phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25. The whistleblower alleged that President Trump threatened to withhold approximately $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless President Zelensky agreed to launch an investigation into the business activities of Hunter Biden. (Hunter Biden—the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival for President Trump in the 2020 election—used to work for a Ukrainian gas company.)1

Shortly after this information became public and the White House released an edited summary of the phone call, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin a formal impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.2

What is Impeachment?

READ: The Close Up in Class Primer on Impeachment

Impeachment is the adoption of formal charges against the president or another civil officer in the federal government. The impeachment process begins in the House. The House is responsible for carrying out an investigation, or impeachment inquiry, into potential wrongdoing by an official. After the investigation, if a simple majority of the House votes in favor of formal articles of impeachment, the official is impeached. Impeachment does not mean an official will be removed from office.

Next, the process moves to the Senate. The Senate conducts a trial for the impeached official, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the senators present in order to convict the impeached official. The penalty for conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified an official from holding public office again in the future.

Only two presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton—have been impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate. To date, no president has been removed from office by the Senate. (The House launched an impeachment inquiry into the actions of President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full chamber voted on articles of impeachment.)

Impeachment is a Real Possibility; Removal is Much Less Likely

With at least 226 members of the House supporting the impeachment inquiry, it is a very real possibility that the House could impeach President Trump.3 And as more information has come to light, including a second whistleblower,4 allegations that President Trump asked other countries for investigations,5 and the arrest of two associates of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani,6 public support for impeachment has grown.7 On October 8, Fox News released a poll indicating that 51 percent of respondents not only want President Trump to be impeached but removed from office as well.8

However, the path to removing President Trump from office contains several significant hurdles. Not only would a vote to convict President Trump, if he is impeached, set a striking precedent (as the first removal of a president in U.S. history), the fact is that the votes simply may not be there.

Currently, the Senate is made up of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with Democrats. Even if all 47 Democrats and independents voted to convict in an impeachment trial, they would need the votes of 20 Republicans as well in order to remove the president from office. This would be difficult in normal circumstances; it is particularly unlikely with a national election approaching in 2020.

President Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 87 percent voicing their approval to Gallup in mid-September. Among independents, the president’s job approval rating is 36 percent.9 For the 23 Senate Republicans up for reelection in 2020, as well as some Democrats in heavily Republican states, voting to remove the president from office could inspire their constituents to vote them out. For many senators, it may not be worth the risk, especially since voters will have the chance in November 2020 to vote on President Trump’s reelection themselves.

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you believe President Trump should be impeached? Do you believe he should be removed from office? Why or why not?
  2. Should asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent in exchange for aid count as an impeachable offense?
  3. Do you believe it is reasonable to require a simple majority vote (50 percent +) in the House for impeachment but a supermajority (67 percent +) in the Senate for removal? Why might these standards be different?
  4. Besides removal from office, do you think an impeached president should face other less/more severe sentences if convicted?


Featured Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, Politico
[2] Ibid.
[3] New York Times:
[4] ABC News:
[5] The Guardian:
[6] Washington Post:
[7] Ibid.
[8] Fox News:
[9] Gallup:


Eliminate Illegal Immigration; Make Immigration Work for the Economy

President Donald J. TrumpImmigration policy and enforcement continues to be a major area of conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Currently, Congress is considering many bills related to immigration, asylum, migrant detention, and family separation. This week, we will look at two proposals that Republicans are advancing; two weeks ago, we examined two bills that Democrats are advancing.

Republicans have two main goals for immigration policy: to drastically reduce illegal immigration and to ensure that immigration is good for the U.S. economy.

In May, President Trump proposed sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration system. In addition to boosting border security and securing funding for a wall on the southern border, President Trump aims to reduce the number of poor or unskilled immigrants in favor of immigrants with education or expertise that will contribute to the U.S. economy.1

Border security, and especially the proposal for a border wall, has received ample attention and is a central focus in two of our earlier posts (see: The Shutdown: It’s Over! … Isn’t It? and State of Uncertainty: Emergency Declaration on the Border). In this post, we will take up two proposals to change legal immigration in ways that Republicans believe will help the U.S. economy.


Secure and Protect Act of 2019 

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced this bill in May; it reached the full Senate in August. The bill addresses many aspects of immigration related to seeking asylum or refugee status and to the treatment of undocumented migrants. The bill would make several key changes to the system, including:

  • Lengthening the amount of time the government is permitted to hold children away from their families, from 20 days to 100 days;
  • Making immigration officers the sole authority on whether or not a minor is capable of making their own decisions in the immigration process;
  • Establishing refugee processing centers in certain countries (designated by the secretary of Homeland Security), especially in Central America; and
  • Barring people from countries with those processing centers from seeking asylum.2

These changes would allow the Trump administration to automatically reject asylum claims made by migrants from Central America; their only paths to entry would be legal immigration or the refugee process.


LISTEN: What is the difference between refugees and asylum seekers?


Deny Visas to Immigrants Who Cannot Afford Health Insurance

The Trump administration has plans to implement a policy of rejecting visa applications from immigrants who cannot prove that they could afford health insurance or other health-related costs.3 President Trump signed a proclamation on October 4 stating that the new practice will begin in November 2019.

Explaining the shift in policy, Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute said, “The administration is on-the-record wanting to cut legal immigration, and particularly wanting to cut legal immigration of lower-skilled, lower-paid immigrants who are probably less likely to have health insurance coverage.”4

Supporting his proclamation, President Trump said, “Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our health care system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.”5



These two proposals, and the two Democratic proposals examined two weeks ago, show the different priorities of the two major political parties on the issue of immigration. While Republicans want to limit both legal and illegal immigration, Democrats are attempting to check the president’s power and to ensure humane treatment of undocumented migrants.


Discussion Questions

  • When you think of immigration, what do you see as the most serious issue?
  • Should the United States take steps to reduce numbers of legal immigrants? Why or why not?
  • When you compare the four proposals (two from Democrats and two from Republicans), whose vision for immigration do you most support?
  • What do you think the United States’ big-picture immigration goals should be?


Featured Image Credit: Handout/Reuters, via the Washington Post
[1] PBS Newshour:
[2] Library of Congress’
[3] CBS News:
[4] Ibid.
[5] NPR: