A federal judge in Maryland reluctantly ruled against a challenge to President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Judge Roger Titus said he’d prefer a different outcome but felt his job doesn’t allow him to set immigration policy. His opinion, wrote Politico.com, was ‘very revealing.’
“This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result it has reached,” Titus wrote. “Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their jobs done.”
Titus’ verdict ends one suit brought against the Trump administration for its sudden end to DACA, a program which protects hundreds of thousands of young people who came to the United States illegally and as children from deportation. Other judges in other courts have allowed parts of DACA to remain in effect.
According to POLITICO, Titus’ decision was praised by the Department of Justice, which has adopted an anti-immigration bent under Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“Today’s decision also highlights a serious problem with the disturbing growth in the use of nationwide injunctions, which causes the Maryland court’s correct judgment in favor of the government to be undermined by the overbroad injunctions that have been entered by courts in other states,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley.
Mostly noticeably, San Francisco-based federal Judge William Alsup ordered the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing DACA document renewals in early January. Alsup’s injunction hasn’t stopped some applications from being ignored or under-prioritized. Thousands of DACA beneficiaries, known as Dreamers, face an uncertain future as their legal status comes to an end in the coming months.
Titus referenced a ruling made by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel in his opinion.
Curiel – a Mexican-American accused by President Trump of bias – similarly struck down a challenge to the commander-in-chief’s proposed border wall.
Selecting a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Curiel wrote, “Courts are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Critics of the border wall plan filed a suit against the Trump administration for its border wall plans, claiming the government would disturb flora and fauna while misappropriating funds.
“An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for ‘Dreamers,’” wrote Titus, “yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act.”