San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the administration to resume accepting renewal applications for DACA last week. | Getty DOJ seeking Supreme Court review of DACA ruling San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the administration to resume accepting renewal applications for DACA last week.

The Justice Department on Tuesday announced plans to seek direct Supreme Court review of a judge's ruling that blocked President Donald Trump from shuttering a program that gave work permits and other protections to some people who entered the U.S. illegally as children.

The administration is also appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the unusual tactic of petitioning directly to the Supreme Court would make an end run around the lower court, which Trump and his aides have repeatedly criticized for what they view as liberal rulings.


San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup's ruling last week required the administration to resume accepting renewal applications for the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

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.

“It defies both law and common sense for DACA ... to somehow be mandated nationwide by a single district court in San Francisco,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “We are now taking the rare step of requesting direct review on the merits of this injunction by the Supreme Court so that this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved.”

Still, while Justice Department attorneys could have asked the courts to stay Alsup's ruling, they did not seek any immediate relief on Tuesday. Letting the injunction remain in place and delaying any immediate action in the legal battle could give the White House more time to hash out a deal with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to provide long-term relief for the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.

Trump decided last year to end the program and call for a legislative fix instead. But while a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached a deal to extend DACA protections, the White House has not signed off, and Trump's rhetoric about immigration has made the talks more difficult. Alsup's ruling does not require officials to accept new applications, but the administration must allow the renewal of expiring applications for DACA protections.

A Justice Department spokesman had no immediate comment on why the administration did not seek emergency relief from Alsup's order.

Even if the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case without an appeals court ruling, it could be months before the justices resolve the legal fight. If they follow their typical timeline for cases, the matter would not even be scheduled for argument until the fall.

A lawyer involved in one of the DACA lawsuits called the Justice Department decision to appeal the ruling "disappointing."

“It’s all a negotiating gambit,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel. "The administration is using these young people as bargaining chips."

Alsup's ruling said Sessions acted based on "a flawed legal premise" when he declared that DACA needed to be shut down because it was likely unconstitutional and faced the threat of a lawsuit from several conservative states. The judge also said there were indications that the decision to wind down the program might not have been driven by legal concerns but by an effort to obtain leverage in broader negotiations with Congress on immigration issues.

In a related decision Friday, Alsup said there was a "plausible inference" that Trump decided to end the program because of racial animus toward Mexicans and Latinos. He said those challenging the end to DACA could argue that racial comments Trump made during the 2016 campaign raised doubts about his stated reasons for stopping the program.

