In a filing dated Tuesday, the department said that allowing the cases to continue to move through the normal appeals process would cause an "untenable and unnecessary" delay in the administration's efforts to eliminate the policy.
In court papers, Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the justices to take up the case this term and argued that district judges who had issued opinions against the administration were "wrong" to do so.
The decision to close it down was made in September last year, but the government decided that it would "phase out" the program after six months - that is, by March 5 of this year - in order to give Congress an opportunity to consider authorizing DACA and making it legal. If the Supreme Court had accepted the petitions or vacated the lower court rulings, doing so would have strengthened the FCC's repeal. The Supreme Court this week stated it wouldn't be hearing the case (pdf).
In October, the Justice Department filed notice it would seek the Supreme Court's intervention if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't issue a verdict on challenges against the program by Oct. 31.
The reason Big Cable persisted in that challenge - even after the rules were struck down by Pai's FCC - is because it fears the decision will act as a legal precedent against the new rules when yet another lawsuit is heard. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 2019 in the Second Circuit.
The Justice Department maintains that position and has vigorously defended the president's authority to end DACA.
Additional challenges to DACA are winding their way through appeals courts in NY and the District of Columbia following district court rulings against Trump's plan to end the program. "That is what we have done, and it was the lawful thing to do".
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will not hear a closely watched case over the future of the internet - rejecting a petition by telecom industry groups to consider net neutrality, or the principle that internet providers should treat all online content equally.
The cases are DHS v. Regents of the University of California (18-587) (CA9); Trump v.
Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the status of DACA recipients also could be resolved through an act of Congress - but in recent years, Congress has had a notoriously hard time taking action on immigration issues.