DACA, created in 2012, was intended to provide temporary reprieve to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, a group often described as “Dreamers.” Many of those are now adults.
The three-judge panel, two of whom are appointees of former President Donald Trump, occasionally chimed in during the hearing, largely focusing on the states’ standing. Texas — in its lawsuit originally brought along with Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — argues that the program placed an undue burden on the states and amounted to executive overreach.
Judd Stone, who argued on behalf of Texas, suggested that at least some DACA recipients would leave the country without the program.
A decade since the program was established, DACA is still one of the only signs of potential relief for undocumented immigrants looking to remain and work in the US — and it remains in legal limbo.
Justice Department attorney Brian Boynton stressed the deep ties DACA beneficiaries have in the United States. “The prospect that they’d voluntarily leave the country is quite speculative,” Boynton argued.
“DACA recipients have maximized their opportunity in these last 10 years,” Maria Gabriela “Gaby” Pacheco, TheDream.US director of advocacy, development and communications, told reporters last week, citing, for example, recipients getting college degrees and owning homes.
Last July, Judge Andrew Hanen, of the Southern District of Texas, ruled that DACA was unlawful and blocked the government from approving new applications for the program. Hanen’s order, however, allowed the program to continue for current enrollees while the case is litigated.
The Justice Department later filed a notice to appeal Hanen’s ruling, kicking off the appeals process in the 5th Circuit, a conservative-leaning appeals court. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing a group of DACA recipients who are defending the program, also appealed.
There were three issues at hand Wednesday, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas Saenz previously told reporters: standing, meaning whether Texas has proven injury from DACA and has the right to challenge the policy; that the Obama administration didn’t follow proper procedures in implementing DACA; and the legality of the program.
The Justice Department also cited a recent Supreme Court decision in filings leading up to Wednesday’s arguments.
The holding suggested that from now on, in cases concerning those types of policies, lower courts can grant relief that affects individual challengers but won’t be allowed to issue orders that broadly bar immigration officials from carrying out certain practices. The Justice Department argued that holding is in its favor here.
While it is unclear whether this case will end up before the Supreme Court, three justices signaled in a previous dissent their belief that the program is unlawful. The full court has not yet weighed in on DACA’s legality.
This story has been updated with details from Wednesday’s hearing.
