EDITORIAL: Court opens the door for compromise on DACA

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on the controversial DACA program was curious in the sense that it’s rare for a justice to so clearly telegraph his lack of backbone. But that’s clearly what Chief Justice John Roberts did in siding with the liberal wing to uphold the Obama-era decree.

The 5-4 ruling is not so much a judicial decision as an abdication. Writing for the majority, the chief justice sidestepped the issue at hand — whether the previous administration had the authority to unilaterally impose the policy and whether the Trump White House had the authority to end it — by finding safe harbor in an obscure statute that dictates rule-making procedures for federal agencies.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”

On that regard, the majority ruled against the president, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) demanded that the White House offer a more comprehensive rationale for its repeal of the policy, which prohibits the deportation of children brought to this country illegally by their parents.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas did not mince words.

“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” he wrote. “The court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the legislative branch. … In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches.”

Tellingly, while the majority held the APA governed the Trump administration’s effort to repeal DACA, it made no such determination in regard to the Obama administration’s unilateral imposition of the program.

President Trump responded to the ruling in typical fashion, by rage tweeting. Meanwhile, Democrats cheered the decision and, for now, have stopped hyperventilating over the court’s “conservative” tilt. In fact, the finding offers an incentive for compromise.

Congressional Democrats have motivation to come to the table because the ruling doesn’t preclude the White House from again killing DACA — this time, within the parameters of the APA. The president has an incentive to bargain because polls show a large majority of Americans favor immigration leniency for the children of those who came here illegally.

In truth, Mr. Trump has expressed varying opinions on DACA, admitting that he wants to preserve it. Now is the chance. The administration should craft a deal with congressional Democrats to protect the so-called “Dreamers” that both sides can tolerate. That’s called win-win for all.