NEW ORLEANS– A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a district judge’s ruling that parts of the Biden Administration’s 2022 DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) rule is unlawful. However, the three-judge panel allowed the DACA rule to go into effect nationwide except for Texas. The decision also left in place the lower court’s decision allowing current DACA recipients, even in Texas, to renew DACA while the case is on appeal.
In its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the DACA rule was inconsistent with the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, but limited the effect of its ruling in several important ways:
· The Fifth Circuit decision upheld the part of DACA that allows federal officials to classify DACA recipients as low priorities for removal and to not remove them. The Fifth Circuit decided that forbearance from removal can be preserved as DACA while “benefits” provisions are removed.
· The Fifth Circuit decided that the relief in this case is limited to Texas. This means that the ruling that strikes down parts of DACA will apply only to people in Texas.
In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled the Obama Administration’s 2012 DACA memorandum unlawful because it violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act. After President Joe Biden took office, the administration created a rule formalizing DACA. However, in September 2023, Hanen once again held that DACA is unlawful. Despite the court rulings, none of the decisions put an end to DACA for those who have already received that status.
MALDEF and co-counsel, Ropes & Gray LLP, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of New Jersey appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit. On October 10, attorneys presented oral argument before the three judge-panel of the Fifth Circuit.
The case, Texas v. United States, is a 2018 Texas-led challenge to the legality of the program that offers certain immigrants protection from deportation and the ability to work and go to school. MALDEF intervened in the case on behalf of a group of DACA recipients who argued they would not be adequately defended by the first Trump administration.
Please attribute the following statement to MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz:
“The Fifth Circuit panel has belatedly recognized that the decision on DACA’s legality should be applied only in Texas under current Supreme Court doctrine; this tardy decision has deprived hundreds of thousands of young immigrants of the right to receive DACA, to the detriment of our economy and our progress as a nation. This injustice, of several years in duration, should be taken into account as new immigration policy is developed.
“The panel’s decision to sever forbearance from work authorization, while welcome, provides little or no protection to the employers, businesses, and neighborhoods that have come to rely on the incredible contributions of DACA recipients to preserving and promoting economic and social progress.
“Moreover, the panel’s overreliance on the Fifth Circuit’s previous flawed analysis of standing and of the legality of DACA in its entirety make this decision itself ill-informed and non-conforming with respect to current federal law. Thus, we will be carefully considering, with our clients, the best options for preserving the work authorization (and forbearance) of all DACA recipients and DACA-eligible immigrants.
“Finally, this decision presents squarely the question to be answered by Congress and the new administration: Will you finally accede to the expressed desires of bipartisan supermajorities of voters nationwide to preserve and protect the national asset that is made up of our DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible immigrants?”
Please attribute the following statement to MALDEF Vice President of Litigation Nina Perales:
“The ruling restores DACA in 49 states, providing temporary relief for thousands of young people who study, work, and contribute to our nation. And all current DACA recipients remain protected, and able to renew their DACA grants, until this case concludes its journey through the courts.”
Read the decision HERE and read a timeline of the case HERE.