PHOENIX, AZ (CNS) – For Cinthia Padilla Ortiz, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the DACA program was “an unexpected and beautiful moment” and left her feeling “that sense of hope in our community.”
“When I read the decision – there are moments where there are no words to describe the feelings,” the recent law graduate from Loyola University New Orleans told Catholic News Service.
“There was a mixture of feelings because I felt thankful and optimistic about this decision due to the fact that earlier this week we had a favorable decision on another civil rights case for federal workers who identified as part of the LGBT community,” she added.
On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling said President Donald Trump could not stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with his 2017 executive order. DACA protects about 700,000 young people who qualify for the program from deportation and allows them to work, go to college, get health insurance and obtain a driver’s license.
The program was established by President Barrack Obama with an executive order in 2012 to allow young people brought into the country illegally as minors by their parents to stay in the United States.

The court ruled that the manner in which Trump terminated the program was not correct. So although this has given DACA recipients time to breathe and renew their DACA status, the court’s decision also plays in favor of Trump, so the president could still end it if he follows different steps.
Law professor Laura E. Gomez at the University of California, Los Angeles said Trump could start the process over again to end DACA.
“President Trump was contending that since the program was made by executive order, all they had to do to rescind it was to announce via executive order that it was done,” said Gomez. “What the court said in this case was that it was not sufficient.”
“Because the program existed for eight years and those people who have DACA status have relied on the benefits of that law like work permits, the court said that since they have a reliance interest – they have relied on having that right to work in choosing their educational, training or via home and starting a family – because they have relied on that, the government has to rationally justify why they are taking that away,” she added.
“Yes, the Trump administration could say on Monday, ‘OK, we are going to rescind DACA and here is our 30-page memorandum. We have looked at it in detail and here is what we have come up with.”
Gomez said although there is a possibility that DACA could be rescinded, even Republicans were pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which indicates to her that Trump is likely not going to be taking down DACA before the presidential election in November.
However, Trump has already gone on Twitter and said he will immediately seek to resubmit the process to end DACA. He also said court decision has given him more power than anticipated.
For some college students, like Nelson Martinez del los Santos, the decision came with initial excitement and optimism, but soon the reality of what door it left open hit him, that door that leads toward DACA’s termination.
“I was sleeping, and my mother and sister run through the door screaming that they kept DACA,” said del los Santos, a junior at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.
“I was very excited in that moment,” he told CNS. “Now that I educated myself and learned about what is actually going on, yes – the Supreme Court sided with DACA, but they, more or less, just did not agree with the way the Trump administration went about it.”
“I am just hopeful that the people of this country can see the humanity in this program,” he added. “As for my future, the DACA program is uncertain, but that is not going to stop me or anyone else in the DACA program in achieving what our parents came here to give us – that immigrant dream.”
Another thing to note in the Supreme Court decision was the lack of condemnation of racial bias by Trump in his DACA order; the ruling concluded there was no racial animus on the part of the president. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was in the majority on the ruling, disagreed with this conclusion on bias and wrote a separate opinion.
“Not a lot of people have talked about the fact that even though 100% of the Supreme Court majority, the five justices in the majority, did the right thing but did not go far enough,” said Gomez. “If you look at Sotomayor’s opinion, she is both agreeing with Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts (who wrote the majority opinion) but is disagreeing with him.
“Out of the nine Supreme Court justices in the court, she is the only one who believes the decision should have allowed all the plaintiffs to continue with their lawsuits saying that the law was racially bias and discriminatory.”
“The lower courts’ judges, many of them, had agreed that there was plausible concern of racial discrimination,” she added. “The case had not gone far enough for the plaintiffs to introduce their evidence and have a full-blown hearing. If the Supreme Court would have ruled the way Sotomayor wanted it to, then that hearing would have been playing out just as we are getting up to the election.”
Ortiz noted that DACA recipients have lived in the United States for the majority of their life and identify as Americans, and are deserving of the moral support of their communities.
They have made positive contributions to this country. For example, a CNN article pointed out that an estimated 29,000 DACA recipients are health care workers. In addition, a 2018 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated DACA recipients contribute $1.7 billion dollars in taxes annually.
“Dreamers, as a community, share a common collective characteristic – we all arrived in the United States when we were children,” said Ortiz. “Children should not be punished, held hostage or be a political pawn ever.”
“We are helping Dreamers who identify as American to stay at home and continue the natural progression of them becoming the best version that they can be and serve their community here in the United States,” she added.
Nelson said he wants people to realize there are good people in this program. DACA recipients have to be ideal American citizens, because any mistake can get them deported.
“At the end of the day, they are good people and they are people first before (they are) immigrants,” said del los Santos. “They are trying to do the best they can for their family. That is an idea that everyone can believe in and respect. A lot of what that looks like for people in Latin America is going to a country that has better safety, better opportunities, better quality of life and striving to maintain that while you are here.”
As she looks back, Ortiz said she had to overcome many financial and mental hurdles due to the limitations put on DACA recipients.
“I was an ‘A’ student,” said Ortiz. “I graduated with a 4.0 from high school as a distinguished scholar. My mind was set on Harvard University and subsequently Harvard Law,” and instead she went to law school at Loyola University New Orleans.
“Digesting the fact that I had to reinvent my dream, keep myself afloat with optimism and protect my mental health has been the biggest challenge of my life,” she explained.
“Some Dreamers gave up on their dream,” she said, but she was able to reinvent her dream.

By Carol Zimmerman
WASHINGTON (CNS) – In a 5-4 ruling June 30, the Supreme Court said the exclusion of religious schools in Montana’s state scholarship aid program violated the federal Constitution.
In the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that if a state offers financial assistance to private schools, it has to allow religious schools to also take part. Separate dissents were written by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Roberts said the decision by the Montana Supreme Court to invalidate the school scholarship program because it would provide funding to both religious schools and secular schools “bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools.”
“The provision also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school,” he wrote.
Sister Dale McDonald, a Sister of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is the director of public policy and educational research for the National Catholic Educational Association, said she was happy with the decision, mainly because “it puts faith-based organizations on a level playing field” to be able to also take part in other opportunities.
And for the court to say these scholarship programs have to be inclusive, “that is a big victory,” she told Catholic News Service.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the court “rightly ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to discriminate against religion. This decision means that religious persons and organizations can, like everyone else, participate in government programs that are open to all.”
The statement from Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, and Bishop Michael C. Barber, of Oakland, California, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Catholic Education, also said the decision was “good news, not only for people of faith, but for our country.”
“A strong civil society needs the full participation of religious institutions,” the statement said. “By ensuring the rights of faith-based organizations’ freedom to serve, the court is also promoting the common good.”
Advocates for school choice also praised the decision. “The weight that this monumental decision carries is immense, as it’s an extraordinary victory for student achievement, parental control, equality in educational opportunities and First Amendment rights,” said Jeanne Allen, founder and chief executive of the Center for Education Reform.
The case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, was brought to the court by three Montana mothers who had been sending their children to Stillwater Christian School in Kalispell with the help of a state scholarship program.
The program, created in 2015, was meant to provide $3 million a year for tax credits for individuals and business taxpayers who donated up to $150 to the program. It was helping about 45 students and just months after it got started, the Montana Department of Revenue issued an administrative rule saying the tax credit donations could only go toward nonreligious, private schools – explaining the use of tax credits for religious schools violated the state’s constitution.

The mothers were represented by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit legal advocacy group based in Virginia. In 2015, these mothers sued the state saying that barring religious schools from the scholarship program violated the federal constitution. The trial court agreed with them, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The court based its decision on the state constitution’s ban on funding religious organizations, called the Blaine Amendment.
Thirty-seven states have Blaine amendments, which prohibit spending public funds on religious education. These bans date back to the 19th century and are named for Rep. James Blaine of Maine, who tried unsuccessfully in 1875 to have the U.S. Constitution prohibit the use of public funds for “sectarian” schools.
In oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the amendments reflected “grotesque religious bigotry” against Catholics. Adam Unikowsky, Montana’s attorney, argued that the state’s revised constitution in 1972 does not have “evidence whatsoever of any anti-religious bigotry.”
The USCCB’s June 30 statement said the court “dealt a blow to the odious legacy of anti-Catholicism in America,” stressing that Blaine Amendments “were the product of nativism and bigotry” and were “never meant to ensure government neutrality toward religion but were expressions of hostility toward the Catholic Church.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion in the case, highlighted the anti-Catholic origins of state Blaine amendments like the one in Montana and he even included an 1871 political cartoon from the political magazine Harper’s Weekly to show the bigotry toward Catholics at the time. The cartoon depicts priests as crocodiles slithering toward children in the U.S. as a public school crumbles in the background.
The USCCB also filed a friend-of-the-court brief, along with several other religious groups, in support of the plaintiffs, which said: “Families that use private schools should not suffer government discrimination because their choice of school is religious.”
A group of Montana Catholic school parents also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief stressing that state Blaine amendments “should be declared unconstitutional once and for all.”
Before the case was argued, Richard Garnett, director of the University of Notre Dame’s Program on Church, State and Society, said it could have major implications for education-reform debates and policies and it “could remove, or at least reduce, one of the legal barriers to choice-based reforms like scholarship programs and tax credits for low-income families.”

(Follow Zimmermann on Twitter: @carolmaczim)

By Mary D. Dillard
BIRMINGHAM – The Diocese of Birmingham’s wait for a new shepherd came to a end Wednesday, June 23. The Mass of Installation for Bishop Steven J. Raica was celebrated at the Cathedral of St. Paul in downtown Birmingham.
Unlike the night before during solemn vespers, the sun was shining brightly as the clergy lined up outside the cathedral to begin the procession. Once all the clergy and servers were inside, the doors to the cathedral were closed so Bishop Raica could make the ceremonious knock. With the custom hammer, hand-made by Cathedral employee Philipp Szabo, Bishop Raica knocked on the door three times, after which Archbishop Thomas Rodi, Metropolitan of the Mobile Province, opened the door and welcomed Bishop Raica. Following his entrance, the bishop-elect venerated the crucifix held by Father Bryan Jerabek, pastor and rector of the Cathedral of St. Paul, then blessed those in the narthex with holy water.

Archbishop Rodi greeted all those present and thanked Bishop Emeritus Robert Baker for his service to the Church in Birmingham. He then asked Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, to read the Apostolic Letter of Appointment. After the letter was read, it was handed to Bishop Raica who carried it throughout the cathedral for all those present to see. The last part of the Rite of Installation followed with the nuncio and the archbishop walking Birmingham’s new bishop to his Cathedra, or bishop’s chair. Archbishop Rodi then handed a smiling Bishop Raica the crosier of Bishop Joseph Vath, Birmingham’s first bishop.
Concelebrating bishops included Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing, Bishop Kurt Burnette of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, Bishop Mark Spalding of Nashville, Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, Bishop David Talley of Memphis, Bishop Joseph Kopacz of Jackson, Bishop Louis Kihneman of Biloxi, Bishop William Wack of Pensacola-Tallahassee, and Bishop Emeritus Baker.
Keys to a Christian life
Birmingham’s new bishop began his homily welcoming those present and acknowledging those unable to physically attend due to current pandemic restrictions. He also took the opportunity to thank Bishop Emeritus Baker for his “tenure of faithful episcopal ministry” in the Diocese of Birmingham. Of Bishop Baker, he said, “The priests, deacons, religious and faithful of Birmingham have been truly blessed by your dedication to ministry and your steadfast discipleship with Christ our Lord! I can already see that I have some big shoes to fill!”
He went on to assure the faithful that he is committed to being their shepherd “for better, for worse, in sickness and in health.” As he continued, Bishop Raica highlighted three “keys” to help the Church of Birmingham “unlock the precise meaning” of the day.
The first key the bishop focused on was the “yes” that is required as witnessed through Mary, the Mother of Christ, and Mother of the Incarnate Word. He reflected on the “yes” saying, “The formal announcement of my transfer from Gaylord to Birmingham occurred on March 25, the Solemnity of the Annunciation … That announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to Mary is one of the most significant, and I dare say, the most revolutionary events in Christian history. No longer did we have to try to go and find God somewhere in the heavens, as if everything depended on our reaching out to a Mystery hoping that we might catch a glimpse of God. Rather, we are told, ‘The Word became Flesh.’ God’s Son, took our flesh. He came to find us!”
Bishop Raica expanded on his reflection by highlighting that Mary’s “yes” and subsequent conception of Jesus “opened for us a relationship that is now unbounded by time and dimension, but a reality that confronts us day in and day out.” He continued, “It allows us to see that a relationship with a person, whose voice we can know, invites us to know that our humanity is profoundly loved beyond anything we could ever imagine. It has profound dignity because each human being – especially in light of our recent civil turmoil and unrest, reflects the very image and likeness of God regardless of our age, whether we are unborn or in our waning years, the color of our skin or economic status. All are part of the one human family with a mosaic of experiences and cultures.”
The second key mentioned was “looking” for Christ. With the Mass of Installation being celebrated as a votive Mass of St. John the Baptist, Bishop Raica noted the saint’s words from the Gospel of John, “Look, there’s the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” The bishop stressed that in any form of evangelization, the very first word is “look.” In fact, the bishop said that we must open our eyes, ears, minds, and hearts, for the “One you have been waiting for … is here!”
The last key of “going forth on mission” is exemplified by the patron of the Diocese of Birmingham, St. Paul. It was Paul who became an ardent evangelist and his life has “become a point of reference in mission.” Bishop Raica told the faithful that as Paul proclaimed Christ, “So must we.” “Our faith doesn’t settle for minimums, but for real total engagement with reality. May we be bold to live up to the noble calling of becoming truly ourselves, what God has planned and purposed for each of us – people who are redeemed, joyful, fulfilled, and free,” he proclaimed.
Bishop Raica concluded his homily by bringing together the three keys that he says will “open the door for a fruitful life as a Christian here in the Diocese of Birmingham.” “To say ‘yes’ to God’s invitation, to ‘look’ and see Christ around us as the answer to our hearts’ deepest longing; and, to ‘go’ out and embark on a mission of witnessing God’s love by our lives … becoming a ‘missionary disciple’ offering hope to a world marred by violence, hate and lack of respect for others. That is a noble mission and one we should not shirk from each and every day, leaving a unique mark behind that says – through me, one could see Christ, know Christ and experience Christ’s love. A ‘yes’ to God’s invitation, to ‘look’ and see Christ around and with us, and ‘going out’ on mission. May God provide us with the grace and strength to live for Him each and every day!”
Bishop Raica succeeds Bishop Emeritus Robert J. Baker, who served the Diocese of Birmingham since October of 2007. Bishop Raica was born Nov. 8, 1952, ordained a priest Oct. 14, 1978, named as an Honorary Prelate of His Holiness in 1998, ordained and installed as Bishop of Gaylord, Michigan Aug. 28, 2014, and appointed Bishop of Birmingham March 25, 2020.