Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) disputes
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Overview
What is DACA?
DACA is an executive policy initiated in 2012 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Obama.
It provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children.
It does not provide legal status or a path to citizenship, but allows deferred action on removal.
Why Has DACA Been Litigated?
Since DACA was created via executive action, questions arose about its legality, scope, and administrative process.
Successive administrations have challenged, rescinded, or defended DACA.
The key legal disputes involve whether the executive branch has authority to implement such a program without congressional approval, and whether procedural rules were followed.
Detailed Case Law on DACA Disputes
1. United States v. Texas, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015)
Facts: Texas and other states sued to block DAPA (a related program) and expanded DACA, arguing executive overreach.
Issue: Whether the executive acted beyond its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Holding: The 5th Circuit issued a nationwide injunction blocking DAPA and expanded DACA, questioning the legality of the executive action.
Significance: Although about DAPA, this case shaped the environment for DACA legal challenges by emphasizing limits on executive immigration actions.
2. Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018)
Facts: After the Trump administration announced plans to rescind DACA, several states and DACA recipients sued.
Issue: Whether the rescission was lawful under the APA and the take care clause of the Constitution.
Holding: The 9th Circuit blocked the rescission, ruling it was arbitrary and capricious because DHS failed to consider important factors or follow required procedures.
Significance: Upheld the program’s continuation pending proper administrative action; emphasized procedural fairness.
3. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Facts: Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the Trump administration’s DACA rescission.
Issue: Whether the rescission violated the APA.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious, violating the APA because DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation.
Significance: Allowed DACA to remain in effect; emphasized strict APA compliance in administrative decisions.
4. Make the Road New York v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2020)
Facts: Challenged DHS’s decision to end accepting new DACA applications.
Issue: Whether DHS had authority to end new applications while continuing existing protections.
Holding: The court enjoined DHS from refusing new applications, emphasizing consistent treatment of DACA recipients.
Significance: Reaffirmed procedural protections and limited DHS discretion in abruptly ending programs.
5. Sierra Club v. Trump, 929 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2019)
Facts: Addressed whether environmental impact statements were required before DACA rescission.
Issue: Whether rescission triggered National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
Holding: Court found NEPA did not apply to immigration decisions like DACA.
Significance: Clarified procedural scope; focused judicial review on APA standards rather than environmental rules.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Key Holding | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Texas (2015) | Blocked expanded DACA/DAPA over procedural/authority issues | Limits on executive authority in immigration |
| Regents v. DHS (9th Cir. 2018) | Rescission was arbitrary and capricious under APA | Importance of reasoned administrative process |
| DHS v. Regents (Supreme Court, 2020) | Rescission unlawful under APA for lack of justification | APA procedural fairness required |
| Make the Road NY v. Wolf (2d Cir. 2020) | DHS must accept new DACA applications | Consistency and fair administrative practice |
| Sierra Club v. Trump (9th Cir. 2019) | NEPA does not apply to DACA rescission | Limits on procedural review for immigration programs |
Key Legal Takeaways
DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the executive branch but must comply with administrative law procedures.
Courts scrutinize whether rescissions or changes to DACA are arbitrary, capricious, or procedurally defective under the APA.
The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision established that the executive cannot rescind DACA without a reasoned explanation, reflecting limits on executive power.
Litigation continues to shape the program’s future, especially regarding whether DHS can change eligibility or application acceptance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments