WASHINGTON, DC – Today, MALDEF President and General Counsel, Thomas A. Saenz, presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's executive actions on immigration, including the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the initiation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).
“The justices seemed closely engaged throughout the entire argument,” stated Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF President and General Counsel. “As expected, the issue of Texas' standing to be in court and challenge the President's time-honored and constitutional exercise of discretion in immigration enforcement received particular attention. We look forward to a decision that will enable the Administration to provide relief to the Jane Does and so many others building families and contributing to our nation's prosperity.”
MALDEF represents three mothers from South Texas who were the only parties granted intervention in the case, and who intend to apply for DAPA once it is permitted to be implemented. DAPA would protect parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from removal and permit the parents to work with legal protection.
Early last year, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas denied the mothers' request to join the case as parties, and decided to temporarily halt DAPA and the expansion of DACA. The decision did not affect the original DACA of 2012, and did not affect DACA recipients who wanted to renew their applications. The government appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit. Arguments were heard in July, and the district court's preliminary injunction was upheld, after the panel determined the government's appeal was unlikely to succeed on its merits.
The firms of O'Melveny and Myers and DLA Piper join MALDEF in representing the intervening Jane Doe defendants in United States v. Texas.