Justices take up high-profile case over young immigrants
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is taking up the Trump administration’s plan to end legal protections that shield 660,000 immigrants from deportation, a case with strong political overtones amid the 2020 presidential election campaign.
All eyes will be on Chief Justice John Roberts when the court hears arguments Tuesday. Roberts is the conservative justice closest to the court’s center who also is keenly aware of public perceptions of an ideologically divided court.
It’s the third time in three years that the administration is asking the justices to rescue a controversial policy that has been blocked by several lower courts.
The court sided with President Donald Trump in allowing him to enforce the travel ban on visitors from some majority Muslim countries, but it blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
Roberts was the only member of the court in the majority both times, siding with four conservatives on the travel ban and four liberals in the census case. His vote could be decisive a third time, as well.
The program before the court is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that aimed to bring out of the shadows people who have been in the United States since they were children and are in the country illegally. In some cases, they have no memory of any home other than the U.S.
With Congress at an impasse over a comprehensive immigration bill, President Barack Obama decided to formally protect people from deportation while also allowing them to work legally in the U.S.
But Trump made tough talk on immigration a central part of his campaign and less than eight months after taking office, he announced in September 2017 that he would end DACA.
Immigrants, civil rights groups, universities and Democratic-led states quickly sued, and courts put the administration’s plan on hold.
There are two questions before the Supreme Court: whether federal judges can even review the decision to end the program and, if they can, whether the way the administration has gone about winding down DACA is legal.
In that sense, the case resembles the dispute over the census citizenship question, which focused on the process the administration used in trying to add the question to the 2020 census. In the end, Roberts wrote that the reason the administration gave for wanting the question “seems to have been contrived.”
There also are similarities to the travel ban case, in which the administration argued that courts had no role to play and that the executive branch has vast discretion over immigration, certainly enough to justify Trump’s ban. In the Supreme Court decision, Roberts wrote that immigration law gives the president “broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion.”
The Supreme Court fight over DACA has played out in a kind of legal slow motion. The administration first wanted the justices to hear and decide the case by June 2018. The justices said no. The justice Department returned to the court a year ago, but the justices did nothing for more than seven months before agreeing to hear arguments.
The delay has bought DACA recipients at least two extra years because a decision now isn’t expected until June 2020, which also could thrust the issue into the presidential campaign.
In part the court’s slow pace can be explained by a preference to have Congress legislate a lasting resolution of the issue. But Trump and Congress failed to strike a deal on DACA.
Janet Napolitano, the University of California president who served as Obama’s homeland security secretary when DACA was created, said the administration seems to recognize that ending DACA protections would be unpopular.
“And so perhaps they think it better that they be ordered by the court to do it as opposed to doing it correctly on their own,” Napolitano said in an interview with The Associated Press. She is a named plaintiff in the litigation.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who is arguing the administration’s case at the Supreme Court, pushed back against that criticism.
“We think the way we did it is entirely appropriate and lawful. If we did it in a different way, it would be subject to challenge,” Francisco said at a Smithsonian Institution event exploring the current Supreme Court term.
The Trump administration has said it moved to cut off the program under the threat of a lawsuit from Texas and other states, raising the prospect of a chaotic end.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined DACA to be unlawful because Obama did not have the authority to adopt it in the first place. Sessions cited an expansion of the DACA program and a similar effort to protect undocumented immigrants who are parents of American children that were struck down by federal courts. A 4-4 Supreme Court tie in 2016 affirmed the lower court rulings.
Texas and other Republican-led states eventually did sue and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas.
The administration’s best argument is a simple one, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston: “The Supreme Court should allow the Trump Administration to wind down a policy it found to be unlawful, even if reasonable judges disagree about DACA’s legality.”
Trump has said he favors legislation on DACA, but that it will take a Supreme Court ruling for the administration to spur Congress to act.
On at least one point, Trump and his DACA critics agree.
“Only legislation can bring a permanent sense of stability for all of these people,” said Microsoft president Brad Smith. Microsoft joined the challenge to the administration because, Smith said, 66 employees are protected by DACA.
The Department of Homeland Security is continuing to process two-year DACA renewals so that in June 2020, hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients will have protections stretching beyond the election and even into 2022.
If the high court rules for the administration, it is unclear how quickly the program would end or Congress might act.
Sounders claim 2nd MLS Cup in 4 years
SEATTLE — Kelvin Leerdam scored his first career postseason goal on a deflected shot in the 57th minute, substitute Victor Rodriguez connected in the 76th and Raul Ruidiaz added the capper in the 90th to give the Seattle Sounders a 3-1 victory over Toronto FC on Sunday in the MLS Cup for their second title in four seasons.
Playing before the second-largest crowd for an MLS Cup final, the Sounders withstood a nervy first 45 minutes before capitalizing on their opportunities in the second half.
Leerdam scored Seattle’s first goal of this season back in March and claimed the winner when what looked to be a cross deflected off the shin of Toronto’s Justin Morrow and past goalkeeper Quentin Westberg. Leerdam’s goal was the release Seattle needed. Rodriguez’s goal started with Gustav Svensson’s pass to Nicolas Lodeiro that left perfectly for Rodriguez near the top of the penalty area. He took a couple of touches to find space and Westberg couldn’t get his hand on the shot to the far post.
Ruidiaz’s capper was one more moment to celebrate for the 69,274 in attendance at CenturyLink Field, beating Chris Mavinga to a clearance and scoring his fourth goal of the playoffs.
Jozy Altidore, who hadn’t played in more than a month and came on as a substitute midway through the second half, pulled one back for Toronto in the third minute of stoppage time.
Seattle became the sixth franchise in league history with multiple titles. The Sounders joined Houston, Sporting Kansas City and San Jose with two titles. The LA Galaxy have five, and D.C. United four.
Meeting for the third time in the past four years in the final, the third chapter was among the most anticipated matches in league history. Seattle helped changed the scope of the league when it arrived 10 years ago and relished the opportunity to host the final for the first time with the home team playing.
For all the fans that showed up, it was an uneasy first 50-plus minutes. Toronto dominated possession and seemed the more likely side to find a goal. They controlled possession. They connected their passes more often. They seemed comfortable in the setting, while Seattle seemed uneasy.
It was one momentary breakdown by Toronto and a bit of luck that allowed Seattle to take the lead.
Ruidiaz had been mostly quiet outside of a great scoring chance in the final minute of the first half that was saved by Westberg. He found enough space at the top of the penalty area to send a diagonal pass to Leerdam. He was initially challenged by Nicolas Benezet, but was able to break free. His ball into the middle of the goal mouth appeared more like a cross than shot, but it didn’t matter when it caught the left shin of Morrow and went past a helpless Westberg.
Seattle’s record crowd erupted after nearly an hour of nervous energy building. It was Seattle’s first goal in a final in 267 minutes after being held scoreless in each of the two finals played in Toronto. For Morrow it was another forgettable moment in a final after he missed during the sixth round of the penalty shootout in the 2016 final with his shot clanging off the crossbar.
Rodriguez’s goal provided cushion and Ruidiaz’s set off the wild celebration.
Camas No. 2, Hockinson and La Center No. 4s as committees set state football bracket
The committees have spoken.
The brackets have been set.
Now let the games begin.
Here are where area teams were seeding and who they will be playing in the first round of the state football playoffs.
Game times, days and sites will be announced in next 24-36 hours, although seeds 1-8 are considered host teams.Class 4A
No. 14 Union (6-4) vs. No.3 Lake Stevens (10-0)
No. 9 Skyview (8-2) vs. No. 8 Woodinville (9-1)
No. 15 Eastmont (9-1) vs. No. 2 Camas (10-0)Class 3A
No. 11 Prairie (9-1) vs. No. 6 Marysville-Pilchuck (10-0)
No. 16 Kelso (6-2) vs. No. 1 O’Dea (9-0)Class 2A
No. 13 Ellensburg (4-5) vs. No. 4 Hockinson (10-0)
No. 11 Washougal (6-4) vs. No. 6 Clarkston (9-1)
No. 15 Ridgefield (6-4) vs. No. 2 Steilacoom (8-2)Class 1A
No. 13 Connell vs. No. 4 La Center (9-0)
Nominees for Week 10 prep football player of the week
Here are the nominees for prep football player of the week for the week ending Nov. 9.
Voting will continue until 8 p.m. Thursday, with results announced in Friday’s edition of The Columbian.
Nominations are limited to one per sport, one per school, each week.
Winners of athlete of the week may not be nominated again until the postseason. Players may not be nominated on consecutive weeks.
To avoid vote manipulation, voting is restricted by IP address, one vote per IP address. That means people voting while connected to a public WIFI access may be unable vote. We suggest voting be done by private internet access or through your cellular provider.
Democrats have put their differences above beating Trump. Bloomberg is a symptom not a cure.
The party needs a leader who can remind progressives and moderates what they have in common.
Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020
As hyperpartisan activists, trolls and bots spread unfounded claims of voter fraud, a contested governor’s race is a preview of what many fear for the presidential election.
Nikki Haley Describes Rebuffing Internal Scheme Against Trump
The former ambassador to the United Nations says in a new book that John Kelly and Rex Tillerson sought to enlist her in circumventing President Trump’s policies.
Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders Star in Their Own Iowa Buddy Movie
He’s 78. She’s 30. For two days they traveled through Iowa bringing their progressive message to the heartland.
F.B.I. and Prosecutors Try Speaking Plainly About Domestic Terrorism
They want to reassure the public that they are combating racist and politically motivated bloodshed — and they fear that the 2020 campaign could spark violence.
What Joe Biden Actually Did in Ukraine
The aims and the aftermath of a legacy project that underscores Mr. Biden’s years of diplomacy — but has been swallowed by the subplot of his son and a Ukrainian gas company.