*   NEW initial applications from people who have never before applied “need not be processed”;

    *   BUT, the order later says the agency may grant deferred action “to new individuals on an ad hoc basis”;

 *   Advance parole “need not be continued for the time being” for anyone

    *   BUT, the order later says that the agency may grant advance parole in individual cases “it finds deserving”;

 *   The government may take administrative steps “to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individual basis for each renewal application.”
 *   There is language that says nothing in this order shall prevent the agency from deporting anyone, including a DACA recipient, “who it determines poses a risk to national security or public safety, or otherwise deserves, in its judgment, to be removed.”

 *   This monitoring will likely mitigate any concerns about the “administrative steps to ensure fair discretion” or ability to deport people above.

FYI—helpful analysis on last night’s decision from Marielen Hincapie of NILC: Judge Alsup in the Northern District of California set of cases halted the government’s termination of the DACA program. The judge granted the individual DACA recipients, cities and states who brought that case (except Maine and Minnesota, which it found did not possess the right kind of standing to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claims) a preliminary injunction. This is an extraordinary form of relief, and a temporary one. Some initial bullet points on what this order does, below: * SCOPE of relief: The government has been ordered to keep the DACA program in place on a nationwide basis on the same terms as before it was terminated on September 5<x-apple-data-detectors://1>, with the following exceptions: * NEW initial applications from people who have never before applied “need not be processed”; * BUT, the order later says the agency may grant deferred action “to new individuals on an ad hoc basis”; * Advance parole “need not be continued for the time being” for anyone * BUT, the order later says that the agency may grant advance parole in individual cases “it finds deserving”; * The government may take administrative steps “to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individual basis for each renewal application.” * There is language that says nothing in this order shall prevent the agency from deporting anyone, including a DACA recipient, “who it determines poses a risk to national security or public safety, or otherwise deserves, in its judgment, to be removed.” * Timing: The judge ordered the government to “post reasonable public notice that it will resume receiving DACA renewal applications” and set out a process for receiving them. * Reporting/Monitoring: The order requires the government to keep records of its actions on all “DACA-related applications” and provide summary reports to the court and the attorneys in that case on the first business day of each quarter. * This monitoring will likely mitigate any concerns about the “administrative steps to ensure fair discretion” or ability to deport people above. * Other: The court also GRANTED the government’s request to certify certain questions for appeal to the Ninth Circuit, including whether or not the plaintiffs in that case have standing (aka whether they are allowed to even bring the case), as well as all other questions the government brought up in its motion to dismiss the case. The Judge notes that these same questions would be reviewable upon appeal of the current preliminary injunction, but he certified them for appeal out of an abundance of caution. (And, it’s worth noting that similar questions in our case have also been certified for appeal to the Second Circuit.) .

It makes sense to sort of freeze things where they are when there is ongoing litigation like this. It doesn’t mean that the case(s) moving forward will succeed, but that the judge sees it as having a credible chance of success and that real harms are going to happen to people before it all gets sorted out. I wonder if this is why Tump sounded so open to deal yesterday afternoon? Jeff > On Jan 10, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Judy Mortrude <jmortrude@clasp.org <mailto:jmortrude@clasp.org>> wrote: > > > FYI—helpful analysis on last night’s decision from Marielen Hincapie of NILC: > > > Judge Alsup in the Northern District of California set of cases halted the government’s termination of the DACA program. The judge granted the individual DACA recipients, cities and states who brought that case (except Maine and Minnesota, which it found did not possess the right kind of standing to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claims) a preliminary injunction. This is an extraordinary form of relief, and a temporary one. > > Some initial bullet points on what this order does, below: > > SCOPE of relief: The government has been ordered to keep the DACA program in place on a nationwide basis on the same terms as before it was terminated on September 5 <x-apple-data-detectors://1>, with the following exceptions: > NEW initial applications from people who have never before applied “need not be processed”; > BUT, the order later says the agency may grant deferred action “to new individuals on an ad hoc basis”; > Advance parole “need not be continued for the time being” for anyone > BUT, the order later says that the agency may grant advance parole in individual cases “it finds deserving”; > The government may take administrative steps “to make sure fair discretion is exercised on an individual basis for each renewal application.” > There is language that says nothing in this order shall prevent the agency from deporting anyone, including a DACA recipient, “who it determines poses a risk to national security or public safety, or otherwise deserves, in its judgment, to be removed.” > Timing: The judge ordered the government to “post reasonable public notice that it will resume receiving DACA renewal applications” and set out a process for receiving them. > Reporting/Monitoring: The order requires the government to keep records of its actions on all “DACA-related applications” and provide summary reports to the court and the attorneys in that case on the first business day of each quarter. > This monitoring will likely mitigate any concerns about the “administrative steps to ensure fair discretion” or ability to deport people above. > Other: The court also GRANTED the government’s request to certify certain questions for appeal to the Ninth Circuit, including whether or not the plaintiffs in that case have standing (aka whether they are allowed to even bring the case), as well as all other questions the government brought up in its motion to dismiss the case. The Judge notes that these same questions would be reviewable upon appeal of the current preliminary injunction, but he certified them for appeal out of an abundance of caution. (And, it’s worth noting that similar questions in our case have also been certified for appeal to the Second Circuit.) > > > > . > _______________________________________________ > National Coalition for Literacy Members mailing list > Members@lists.national-coalition-literacy.org <mailto:Members@lists.national-coalition-literacy.org> > To unsubscribe: http://lists.national-coalition-literacy.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lists.national-coalition-literacy.org <http://lists.national-coalition-literacy.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lists.national-coalition-literacy.org>