蜜柚直播

In new legal briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for various groups are asking the justices to leave undisturbed an appellate court ruling that concluded the state acted illegally in refusing to issue licenses to those accepted into the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said DACA recipients are in this country legally. The judges said 蜜柚直播 has no right to unilaterally decide the issue of legal presence for itself.

But attorneys for the 鈥淒reamers,鈥� led by Jennifer Chang Newell of the American Civil Liberties Union, also have a political argument in their bid to convince the Supreme Court not to reviewing the issue at the behest of state Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

鈥淭he new administration has maintained the program, and continues to grant renewals of deferred action pursuant to DACA,鈥� the legal papers state, even though Trump has the unilateral authority to alter or rescind the policy just as his predecessor enacted it.

And Congress has not taken any action to strip the president of the power to offer deferred action.

鈥淚ndeed, Congress ... had rejected legislation that would have temporarily suspended Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 authority to grant deferred action except in narrow circumstances, demonstrating it knows how it could limit deferred action, but has chosen not to do so,鈥� the 鈥淒reamers鈥欌�� attorneys said.

鈥淐ongress also has considered bills that would bar implementation of DACA; block agency funding unless the program were rescinded; or limited the (Homeland Security) secretary鈥檚 authority to grant DACA recipients to work authorization 鈥� but enacted none of them,鈥� the legal filings continue. 鈥淢eanwhile, Congress has enacted multiple appropriations bills that fund DHS, leaving DACA untouched.鈥�

The 2012 policy allows those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain if they meet certain other qualifications. They also are entitled to employment authorization documents entitling them to work here legally.

At last count, more than 27,000 蜜柚直播ns had been granted DACA status.

But just days before the Department of Homeland Security began taking applications, then-Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order directing the 蜜柚直播 Department of Transportation to not issue licenses to DACA recipients. She cited a 1996 state law that says licenses are available only to those whose presence in this country is 鈥渁uthorized by federal law.鈥�

Brewer argued the federal agency had no legal authority to permit DACA recipients to remain or work. And what that meant, she said, is they were not 鈥渁uthorized鈥� to be here.

That argument failed to convince federal appellate judges who, ruling for the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Immigration Law Center, said 蜜柚直播 cannot decide for itself who is legally entitled to be in the country.

The state Department of Transportation, acting under federal court order, said its most recent statistics show that more than 21,000 DACA recipients have been granted 蜜柚直播 licenses.

Brnovich, with the Supreme Court left as his last chance for legal relief, is arguing that what Obama did is not part of any federal law or even the result of Congress directing a federal agency to adopt a rule. And inherent in that argument is the contention that Obama exceeded his authority in establishing the DACA program in the first place.

The attorneys for the 鈥淒reamers,鈥� however, point out it鈥檚 not like Obama was doing something new.

鈥淔or more than four decades, federal immigration authorities have granted deferred action to otherwise removable noncitizens in a variety of circumstances,鈥� they said. That ranges from victims of human trafficking and relatives of victims of terrorism to even foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

They noted that along with that status comes employment authorization documents to ensure that person can work while here 鈥� the very documents the state is refusing to honor for licenses for DACA recipients. The lawyers for the 鈥淒reamers鈥� say there鈥檚 no legal basis for Brnovich鈥檚 claim that Obama acted illegally.

鈥淚ndeed, no court has found DACA to be unlawful, and every legal challenge has been dismissed,鈥� they said.