Interview – Christopher Hajec, (high-ECK) – our director of litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute – discuss the travel ban SCOTUS arguments and DACA decision.

• Kennedy, conservatives appear to back Trump on travel ban. The Supreme Court finally heard arguments on the travel ban — and Trump looks likely to win. Washington (CNN) Conservative justices and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to side with the Trump administration Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Donald Trump’s travel ban. More than a year after Trump caused chaos in the airports by following through on a campaign promise and restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries, the justices considered the legality of a third version of the original travel ban to decide whether the President ultimately exceeded his authority. Coming out of oral arguments, the justices wrestled with the travel ban, at times breaking down on ideological lines. Kennedy’s vote could be key, and while he did express some reservation about a candidate’s expressions of animus against Muslims during the campaign, he didn’t seem to have overall concerns about the President’s authority to ban entry, noting that the travel ban could be reviewed every 180 days. Other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, also highlighted the President’s power in this area. The Trump administration argued forcefully in favor of the travel ban, with Solicitor General Noel Francisco emphasizing “this is not a so-called ‘Muslim ban.'” “It excludes the vast majority of the Muslim world,” he told the justices, saying the presidential order was based on neutral criteria and written “after a worldwide multi-agency review.” Alito also noted that the ban only impacts a handful of Muslim-majority countries, at one point stating this does “not look like a Muslim ban.”
• ANOTHER Federal Judge Says Trump Must Restart DACA — And His Ruling Goes Further Than The Others. (Daily Caller) — A third federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s decision to wind down an executive amnesty for younger illegal immigrants, saying the administration must restart the program for former recipients and, possibly, new applicants. U.S. District Court Judge John Bates said Tuesday the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) legal rationale for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was too shaky. “DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful,” Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his 60-page opinion. “Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA.” Like two other district court judges who have already ruled against the Trump administration, Bates ordered immigration authorities to resume accepting renewal applications. His order goes a step further than the others, however, by giving the Department of Homeland Security 90 days to come up with a more convincing justification for ending DACA. If it fails to do so, the government must start processing first-time applications, as well, Bates ruled. The Trump administration canceled DACA in September based on the opinion of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said the Obama-era program was unconstitutional. DHS said the program would officially sunset on March 5, but multiple court rulings have forced the agency to continue accepting renewal applications. Bates is the first Republican appointee to rule against the Trump administration’s move to end DACA. Two district court judges appointed by former President Bill Clinton — one in San Francisco and one in Brooklyn — had already issued injunctions requiring the administration to keep the program going for previous recipients.