Yes but it all comes down to what the people that make decisions want.
When you say that Pelosi and Schumer were for the wall before but now are not, you are wrong. They offered $25 billion for the wall in exchange for DACA people having a 14-year path to citizenship. That offer was not a sign they were "for the wall" but an exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, which represented a payment of about $30,000 for each DACA member for their citizenship. At the time, there were no protections for DACA members so they payment was worth it.
Since then, the Supreme Court ruled that they would not hear the case at this time until it runs its course in the lower courts, meaning that for now the DACA members cannot be deported. This has taken away the urgency to come up with a deal with Trump regarding DACA, also meaning the Democrats are no longer interested in the exchange for the path to citizenship, given that there is a good chance the Dreamers can get the path to citizenship through the courts, by-passing Trump entirely.
As such, the action of the Democrats is not political, just common sense. They are not "swinging" their votes, as you said.
Warning: *LONG-ASS POST*
See, now, that's what I'm worried about.
It all comes down to procedural posture.
A district court issued an injunction preventing DHS from rescinding the memo that implemented DACA until such time as the litigation was completed and there was a final ruling. The final ruling would be on the question of whether the DHS complied with the APA in rescinding the memo, specifically, the fact-finding procedures the APA imposes on any executive agency in this circumstance. (I have to be vague; that or mail you my old admin law book...). The Circuit court upheld the stay and SCOTUS declined to act. That means we now wait for the district courts, yes. All good thus far.
My worry comes in where an injunction is not a final ruling. It's just a ruling about the likelihood of the parties' success after all proceedings are concluded (trial, or whatever is being demanded given the kind of filing that's being ruled on). The District Court
could still ultimately rule that DHS complied with the APA, which means bye-bye DACA eligibled and enrolled. However, the usual outcome where an injunction like this is issued is victory by the plaintiffs. (After all, you'd expect that if the District Court did its job in researching the caselaw).
Now, unless I'm forgetting something, DHS could be - right now - properly following the APA in a separate move to rescind the memo that implemented DACA. After all, the only thing in question and held up in court is whether the prior attempt complied. I cannot think of any reason why they couldn't say "ok, we're blocked from deporting them after the first attempt at rescision. But if we now try to rescind it while crossing Ts and dotting Is under the APA, we should be good, and if the second way we do it works the result of the case about the first way we did it won't matter - that only applies to the first way they attempted it).
The problem? Well, I can see the plaintiffs going back into court and saying "ok, we've got the injunction,
but right now they're trying again to rescind it, this time doing a whole lot more fact-finding that does meet the APA. That means they are essentially admitting by action that they didn't the first time around. So they lose."
What I don't recall off the top of my head is whether:
(1) that does anything beyond making them win the first suit, which would be irrelevant if DHS could rescind the memo following proper procedure;
(2) if, in light of this eventuality, the order actually blocks DHS from separately trying to jump through the APA's hoops while the litigation on its first attempt proceeds. I read the first few pages and skimmed the rest when it came out (30 pages, boring admin law stuff, etc). If that was part of the order, then ignore the last few paragraphs. If the injunction against recision after the first attempt ALSO blocked any further attempts at recision during pendency of litigation, then everything about the hypothetical can be ignored.
Of course, note, that regardless of what's happening, the same plaintiffs who filed the first suit could always sue to block a second attempt at recision. That would tie it up again for some time. However, how long it tied it up would depend on whether or not DHS sufficiently followed the APA in this hypothetical second attempt that a judge would not issue an injunction as litigation proceeded.
