Many observers expected some relief for DACA recipients to be part of a government-funding bill, but negotiations have been stormy, in part due to what legislators say was an abrupt shift in tone by President Donald Trump on the immigration issue at meetings last week. | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Justice Dept. asks Supreme Court to rule on Trump's right to end DACA

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Donald Trump’s right to end the program protecting so-called Dreamers, but has decided not to seek permission for him to proceed with the wind-down on the schedule announced last year.

The Justice Department filed a petition with the justices Thursday evening urging them to resolve the legal dispute over the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, during the current court term, in which cases are typically decided by June.


The filing argues that an order issued by a San Francisco-based federal judge last week requiring officials to resume accepting renewals from DACA participants was legally flawed.

In an unusual move, Solicitor General Noel Francisco is asking the justices for permission to bypass the usual process of appeal to the regional circuit court — in this instance the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“A speedy resolution is critical,” Francisco wrote. “This Court has granted certiorari before judgment in order to promptly resolve other time-sensitive disputes, and it should follow the same course here.”

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Despite the urgent tone, however, the administration did not immediately seek a stay of U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s decision. Instead, last Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security began accepting renewal requests in accordance with the judge’s order.

In the new filing, Francisco says officials concluded that a stay that the Supreme Court might eventually withdraw and reverse posed too much risk of disruption and confusion.

“A primary purpose of the [Homeland Security] Acting Secretary’s orderly wind-down of the DACA policy was to avoid the disruptive effects on all parties of abrupt shifts in the enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws,” the solicitor general wrote. “Inviting more changes before final resolution of this litigation would not further that interest.”

However, the administration also appears to be acting with an eye toward the ongoing debate in Congress over a potential legislative fix that could moot the legal dispute over the rollback of the DACA program. The legal strategy appears likely to give the White House and lawmakers several additional months of breathing room to work out legislation.

Many observers expected some relief for DACA recipients to be part of a government-funding bill that would be passed this week. However, negotiations over such a measure have been stormy, in part due to what legislators say was an abrupt shift in tone by the president on the immigration issue at meetings last week.

A stopgap funding measure that the House passed Thursday night does not contain any language addressing the DACA issue.

Under the Trump administration policy announced last September, DACA recipients with work permits expiring through March 5 were eligible to renew them for another two years, but those with permits expiring after that date would have no longer been able to renew. The plan would have led to a two-year phase-out in which hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients would lose their quasi-legal status and their right to work.

As a result of Alsup’s ruling and the administration’s decision not to seek a stay, however, the March 5 deadline that had spurred much of the legislative activity on the issue has diminished in significance.

Indeed, some Republicans began signaling this week that there was no urgency to include the issue in funding measures because the court ruling meant there was no imminent threat of Dreamers losing their status. Still, most Democrats appear to be sticking to their position that any prolonged funding package must include language to accommodate DACA recipients.

Alsup’s ruling last week granting a preliminary injunction that had been sought in five separate lawsuits said Attorney General Jeff Sessions acted “based on a flawed legal premise” when he announced that the program was illegal and was on the verge of being shut down by the courts. The judge also suggested, based in part on a tweet from Trump, that the decision may have been an act of legislative gamesmanship rather than one driven by legal concerns.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court on Thursday that Alsup’s central conclusion was incorrect and that the administration had the authority to wind down what had always been billed as a “discretionary” program.

“The district court was wrong to conclude that the Acting Secretary’s discretionary decision to end a particular enforcement policy of doubtful legality must automatically be set aside if a court subsequently decides that the policy was lawful,” Francisco wrote.