The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (‘DACA‘) is an Obama era immigration policy that allowed for certain undocumented immigrants to receive a renewable two year deferred action from deportation and becoming eligible to get a work permit. The then President, Barack Obama seeked to widen the ambit of the policy, a decision which was met with much resistance from the states in the form, among other things, lawsuits. Eventually, the amendment to widen the scope of the act was stalled by the American Supreme Court.

In June of this year, the Trump administration attempted to rescind DACA, ostensibly to exhibit its tougher stance on illegal immigration and enkindle nationalist sentiments in his conservative vote bank. This decision was deemed capricious and arbitrary since it jeopardized the future of many immigrants, some of whom were born and brought up in the United States and had never seen any other country in the entirety of their lives. Consequently, the decision to rescind the legislation was challenged in the American Supreme Court.

The Court by a razor thin majority of 5:4 upheld the validity of DACA. However, it is interesting to note that this decision was not based on the legal tenability of the legislation, but a mere procedural error on the part of the Trump administration. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the memo submitted by the Trump administration memo was inadequate and did not sufficiently elaborate as to why nearly 700,000 people should be subjected to deportation despite having spent their entire lives in the United States and having their spouses and jobs in the country whilst responsibly paying taxes. The honourable court further observed that whenever an executive branch agency wants to implement a new policy, even ones that it is competent to make; they have to explain their decisions and provide a pretty full explanation as to why they did whatever they did.

The decision surprised many who were anticipating that the decision would go in favour of the Trump administration since the majority of the judges were republicans. In 2016, on the question of a similar immigration policy called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, the opinion of the Court was split in 4:4 on partisan lines, it is pertinent to note that back then there were only 8 judges as opposed to 9 since one seat had fell vacant. To fill this vacancy, Justice Roberts, a republican, was appointed.

Hence, it was Justice Roberts, whose vote would have ultimately sealed the fate of the case, contrary to the popular speculation that owing to his political allegiances, he would come down heavily on the validity of DACA, Justice Roberts decided to adopt a narrow view and hence dismissed the case on procedural irregularities. An important question whether the president have the powers to virtually confer citizenship on account of such policies has been treated as a moot point by the judges leaving room for much future litigation. With this backdrop, Mr. Biden’s presidency is a cause to celebrate for many undocumented immigrants who would hope their legal status is quickly decided upon.