[crowd chanting] hi, everyone. A family nu, i am doctor and passionate health care provider. I am daca recipient and plaintiff. As a my family and i moved to the United States when i was 9 years old. My family worked long hours at the restaurant to help our american ieve the dream. Following their example, i went on to become the first person to graduate ucsf medical school. I am also a graduate of the university of california berkeley and the Harvard School of public health. I am here today i have also on to be named to orbes 30 under 30 for cofounding prehealth dreamers, that helps ion undocumented students in pursuit of health careers. Life mission not only to improve the health of all communities as a doctor but also to afford others who in e their same mission their own journey and i am here to share my story, the stories rallying hereo is today and those who could not be here. Two years ago when i met david, a 15yearold unaccompanied minor who walk through our doors at the San Francisco hospital. As i was treating his asthma, i could not help but be reminded hesitation milys and confusion in accessing the health care system. Its my familys experiences that allowed me to walk on the havethat i am on today and allowed me to provide compassionate and effective care to people like david. Today i am one of almost 200 undocumented medical students and residents who, without daca, residency mplete training, and without daca, the health and wellbeing of all the families that we care for will suffer. I hope today that the Supreme Court will uphold eventually daca because it is legal and is use it constitutional and it has been highly effective for undocumented immigrants and our entire country. Being it simply would consequential for all of us. Today i look around and see my friends, my community and everyone is here to fight to be a part of the country we love. Everybody deserves happiness, deserves safety in a place we call home. Plaintiff. To be a i am thankful to have been in the courtroom today to make sure the oices were heard as decisions were made about our lives and to make sure this country knows our home is here. Thank you. Javier becerra, the attorney eneral for the state of california. We, along with a number of others, along with states like new york filed actions as well. I first want to say, to the dreamers who have come, we all stand on their shoulders to try to make the case that no one is above the law and everyone must respect the law. We learned from a very early age there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The federal government tried to terminate the daca program the wrong way. Just as our parents would tell us or as a referee on the field would tell you, if you do it the wrong way, you get penalized. This administration tried to triedlter what it did and to correct what it did by moving the goalpost to justify the unlawful actions. Just as any parent would tell you or any referee would tell you, and i hope the nine justices of the Supreme Court will tell you, do it the wrong way, you cannot try to move the to say you did it the right way. Today we stand here very proud of the arguments that were made on behalf of of the more than 700,000 daca recipients, with you substantially but many, many more dreamers and so many, many more are waiting to am coout of the shadows. We are here to say that we understand that this nation is based on the rule of law and we understand that there is a right way and a wrong way. We are here to stand up for the right way to do things and why we believe that the daca recipients, the dreamers of america and in the ts who must live get to will someday prove that the justices got it done the right way and we are very proud of that. I will now turn the microphone over to my your friend from new york, the attorney general. I want to thank attorney want to ecerra and i say thank you to the 700,000 in this include in this country, including the 42,000 from new york state. I think it is important that there are two issues that were discussed today, whether or not the termination of this program should be reviewed by the court. The answer is clear. The courts have wide discretion this espect to reviewing question. Two, on the merits. That r or not the reasons were provided were adequate, which were sufficient, and the answer is no. They came and made remarks both the secretary, with respect to the termination and the rescission of daca and what we going to you are rescind this program, should take into account that significant numbers who have filed over 300 briefs have institutions and higher educations and businesses. I particularly want to single out microsoft for all that they have done for standing up and defending daca. Really critically important that, again, by terminating daca would provide great distress to number of ss individuals who are here and who of 16d here under the age to live and to go to school and to work. As a result, we cannot terminate and or rescind a program for countless numbers have relied upon a stunning whim or based on the fact that individuals decided that they wanted to end it. I think the words of the Justice Breyer and sotomayor who said President Trump would protect daca and recipients and failed to do so. As a result of the statements of the ut of the mouth president of the United States, this court should understand this is a nation of immigrants and that all of us should uphold the values of our country and that the immigrants are here to stay. We need to protect the 700,000 individuals who came here for opportunity, for education, and for freedom. So from the great state of new york, its an honor and to ilege to be here and represent the coalition, the 17 members of the attorney generals filed on behalf of these individuals and i say se puede. Good afternoon. Daca plaintiff, i am a recipient. I am honored to stand here in front of you continuing our fight. I am from the suburbs of long island, new york, which has been my home for the last 17 years. This is our home. Daca is a program that forever in many y life different aspects. Allowing me the opportunity to shadows, finish college, and become a homeowner. As a parent, defending this program is my duty. Responsibility. My children are the reason why i new york iles from d. C. To washington, no physical pain can be compared to the emotional pain i will feel if we are ever separated. My children deserve to stay with their mother in the place they call home. I hope that the justices can see humanity, our as the good americans we are. Hope they rule on the right side of history. I believe that we will win. Our fight is not over after today. Today, we are fighting for daca, to be orrow we are going fighting tore citizen for citizenship for all. For all the marchers who marched admire you and you have inspired me to continue fighting not only for the recipients but for the 11 million undocumented people who live here. [speaking spanish] see say paida si se puede. Home is here. We will try to take if you questions and then we will go ahead and let others speak, but i know there are others that want to speak. We will try to take some quick questions. Any questions . Ask secretary apolitano who put daca in place . Im janet authored the daca idrit of thenow im the rsity of california, First University to sustained daca. Im here with former Assembly Current board chair of the university, john pettis. Were here. 1,700plus daca students in our student body. Theyre undergraduates. They are law students, medical students. So the interest in this case, as i might imagine, is immense. [inaudible] thats right. Even Justice Breyer said and if you can look at the cameras. Bit. Move over a little whats the point . If we send this back and all they have to do is sort of jump some sort of rhetorical point . Whats the secretary napolitano well, i think its more than rhetorical hoops. Hey have to really do an analysis of the benefits that which are es, ubstantial and have been evidenced by and in all of the amicus briefs that have been filed. I would hope that if we did a real analysis of daca, this is a recognize valid exercise of the executives authority. I represent 500,000 undocumented immigrant youth as redream. United i am undocumented, unafraid and stay. O i stand here in the courtroom being really clear, the lives of more than 700,000 undocumented stake. Are at and im optimistic that the Supreme Court justices will file the side of justice. But whether or not they do that, undocumentedclear, organizing and young people across the country will continue to fight. We will continue to win. Continue to establish the rule of law because at this undocumented young people that are standing to defend the democracy that we also cherish. That united we dream, our partners and all across the country have been here, 3,000 people are outside the courtroom, and we believe that we will win. Nd with that ill pass it over to mr. Ted olson who defended the case. Daca was a Program Announced bisek inistered napolitano by secretary napolitano. Perfect sense to designate individuals who came as children, y whove been vetted, have crimes. D no the government doesnt have the uthority or the power or the resources to move with respect o deportation hearings for all the people it might. So these individuals are the ast persons in the world that we want to evict from this country. These this policy made sense to everyone. Most people realize that. Not administration does want to take responsibility for erminating if and gave the excuse by the attorney general sessions that it was unlawful and had to be terminated. That was an excuse that made no sense. S no the daca policy was lawful and constitutional. Why the e reason attorney general and the administration said that they were terminating it because it unlawful is that they did not want to take ownership of the decisions. They did not want to be responsible or accountable to the people of this country and to all of the individuals involved in this program that they were going to enforce the law against them. If they had done that, they as meant and why it was being terminated. They would have to take the blame and accountability, and the reason they did not want to do that, to take responsibility for the decision, so they said they had no choice, no discretion. Thats what we were arguing about, if they had reason and to explain d ththeir will not. We were asked what difference does it make, it will be sent back and they will make the same decision and explain the reasons. I do not think so. Dont think they want to take responsibility for there are decision. They dont want to explain to the american people. They do not want to own this decision and they will not do it. If we are successful and i believe we will be. The court will say that decision was not justifiable, not consistent with the rule of law. You cannot justify it that way and it cannot be sustained that way. Go back if you want to do it and do it right. And they will not. If the court does sustain the decision and doesnt even have illegal, could see it was not reviewable, could say, what would be the impact of that . In june of bably be 2020, the election year, what would be the impact . One of hing is thats the reasons they wont do this. If they had to make this decision in 2020 in an election they would have to explain why they were making this harsh, decision. An these individuals have become part of the community. Theyve had jobs. Themselves. Ed thousands of of children. They have become part of the community. They have jobs. They served in the armed forces. You are going to rip them out of when they came here as children and threatened them to be sent to countries that they dont even know or they may not even understand the language, they will not do that. If they have to take if that is what our government is about, you will make decisions, you have to take responsibility for those decisions. If you are afraid to do that and do not do that, thats what will happen. They will not make that decision. How can you explain the work permits . Under what authority did the administration have to give work permits out . Says that if a person is in a action category, that and federal statutes that person may be given authorization if it, if they meet all of the standards, and it makes perfect sense that someone that the administration has is not going to be deported is in a position to or ort himself or herself family and be part of the be unity rather than dependent on the government. Once the decision is made, there are statutes authorizing the application for permission to work those are laws which the government has not even challenged. I do not have a particular site for that. We will get you the actual citation of the statute. Believe me, no one challenged that in there. Its a law of the United States and the government doesnt dispute that. [speaking spanish] any other questions . Thank you. [indiscernible conversations] good to see you again. How are you . Im well. Out here. For being thanks for all your help with the case. [indiscernible conversations] heard arguments that we in the courtroom today were about the importance of the overnment speaking plainly and honestly and in straightforward ways so people can hold decisions itor the makes, be particularly when it affects thousands of people like maria. Bring us sues that here today, the issues that are us this three forward deeper than that. Its the issues of the human this program f like maria and other daca beneficiaries. Principles that this country has stood for, that toourages hardworking people make their homes here and have made this country a beacon of throughout its history. I think there were two things that were interesting and perhaps a little bit surprising about the argument. The first, as chris mentioned, was really the point of principle that emerged. Came to thispeople courthouse this morning thinking hat this case was about a narrow technicality. But the argument made clear, as chris mentioned, its really than that. When so many people come forward and rely on this type of program then the government takes it way, be they are owed an explanation as to why. I think thats part of the fundamental fairness that we all in this country, and i think people came understanding that this mattered for the of reds of thousands individuals who are daca registrants. Away think they come appreciating that it also matters deeply to the millions that are depending well. S as [inaudible] the deferred action rule does permits. Work [inaudible] inadequate. What is the justification of the toinistration, not congress, offer 800,000 work permits, how is that possible . That there have 800,000 work permits. We employee 66 of these dreamers. They are doing important work. One of these individuals came at the age of 4 years. Another came to the united months. T the age of 4 theyre protecting the cybersecurity of this nation. Theyre creating the software on which the entire United States military is going to depend, and assure you that there is a lawful work permit for each and them. One of [inaudible] not here today to be an program. That thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, maria. Thank you. So much love. So much love. Coming up today, house nancy pelosi and senate inority leader chuck shuma will schumer will talk about daca, which the Supreme Court argued today. Their briefing live at 2 30 eastern time. The house will gavel in just a few minutes. A number ofa today, veterans related bills. At the se coverage here top of the hour here on cspan. Before dacas Supreme Court case, we spoke to a reporter for some background. Arguments in a minute. Joining us on the phone is greg, i Supreme Court a Supreme Court reporter for bloomberg news. Remind viewers what this case is about. Guest good morning, greta. The case started in 2012 when barack obama said he was going to give young immigrants, people who came here as children generally with their parents illegally, give them the ability to apply for a shield so they would not be deported and could apply for job permits. That program has been in place for a number of years, about 700,000 people now are daca