DACA, created in 2012, was intended to provide a temporary reprieve to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, a group often described as “Dreamers.” Many of them are now adults.
There are more than 611,000 immigrants enrolled in the program, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The case before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday could affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants who rely on the program, as well as those who could benefit.
The three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, interjected occasionally during the hearing, focusing primarily on the states’ plight. Texas — in its lawsuit, originally filed along with Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — argued the program placed an undue burden on the states and amounted to executive overreach.
Judd Stone, who advocated on behalf of Texas, suggested that at least some DACA recipients would leave the country without the program.
A decade after the program was created, DACA is still one of the only signs of potential relief for undocumented immigrants who want to stay and work in the U.S. — and it remains in legal limbo.
Justice Department attorney Brian Boynton emphasized the deep ties that DACA beneficiaries have in the United States. “The prospect of them voluntarily leaving the country is quite speculative,” Boynton said.
The Center for American Progress estimated last year that more than 1.3 million people in the United States live with a DACA recipient.
“DACA recipients have maximized their opportunities over the past 10 years,” Maria Gabriela “Gabby” Pacheco, TheDream.US director of advocacy, development and communications, told reporters last week, citing recipients who are getting college degrees and owning homes, for example. .
Last July, Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas ruled that DACA was illegal and blocked the government from approving new applications for the program. However, Hanen’s order allowed the program to continue for current enrollees while the case is pending.
After Hanen’s decision, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the department would engage in a public rulemaking process “to preserve and strengthen DACA.” Following the decision, a proposed DACA regulation was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, and a final regulation is expected to be released in August.
The Justice Department later filed a notice of appeal of Hanen’s decision, which began the appeal process in the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents a group of DACA recipients defending the program, also appealed.
There were three questions Wednesday, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas Saenz told reporters earlier: standing, meaning whether Texas has proven injury from DACA and has standing to challenge the policy; that the Obama administration did not follow proper procedures in implementing DACA; and the legality of the program.
The Justice Department also cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in documents leading up to Wednesday’s arguments.
The Supreme Court has limited the power of lower courts to block the implementation of certain immigration policies that are said to be illegal. In Garland v. Gonzales, the conservative 6-3 majority said lower courts cannot offer class-wide relief in such cases — which concern policies related to the arrest, detention and removal of immigrants.
The holding suggested that henceforth, in cases involving these types of policies, lower courts would be able to grant relief that affects individual claimants, but would not be allowed to issue orders that broadly prohibit immigration officials from engaging in certain practices. The Justice Department argues that the holding is in its favor here.
Although it is unclear whether this case will reach the Supreme Court, three justices expressed in a previous dissent their belief that the program is illegal. The full court has yet to weigh in on the legality of DACA.
This story has been updated with details from Wednesday’s hearing.
Add Comment