DACA In The Courts - United We Dream

Below is a break down of where DACA is in the courts and what all the different court decisions mean.

Federal Judge (in San Francisco) temporarily blocks Trump’s decision to end DACA.
Name of the case: The Regents of the UCA and Janet Napolitano v. DHS and Kirsten Nielsen (Sec. of DHS).

US District Judge William Alsup (a Clinton appointee) granted a request by California and other states to stop the administration from ending DACA.

This judge argued: The legal opinion was incorrect; indeed, he called it “a flawed legal premise”.
The judge ordered the administration: To start processing applications for renewal of DACA permits and to continue existing ones. However, first-time applicants cannot apply.

After the first injunction, the Department of Justice (DOJ) made a rare (extraordinary) request to the Supreme Court: Skip the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California and take up the DACA case.
On Monday, February 26 SCOTUS declined this “extraordinary” request and said that the appeals court should hear the case first.

Timeline: The Supreme Court’s calendar is full for this year, which means that it might hear the case as early as the fall or spring and have a decision next year. Still, we still do not have a exact timeline.

Federal Judge (this time in Brooklyn) Issues a second injunction to keep DACA in Place.
Name of the case: Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal v. Kirsten Nielsen (Sec. of DHS) / State of New York v. Donald Trump

US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis echoed his counterpart in San Francisco saying that the Administration should keep DACA in place.

Judge Garaufis ordered:
The administration to maintain DACA, but it doesn’t have to accept new applications.
Other Details: The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Make the Road NY and WIRAC Law School Represented a group of 6 DACA recipients in this case.

Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled that the government can’t revoke DACA recipients’ work permits or other protections without giving them notice and a chance to defend themselves.
Please note: This case, unlike the other two, is not about Trump’s decision to end DACA. Instead, it is about government decisions to revoke protections from DACA recipients.
Details of the Case: IEIYC & Arreola v. Duke

In October of 2017, the ACLU (on behalf of DACA recipients) filed a suit against the Trump Administration for its unlawful revocations of DACA protections. One of those DACA recipients is Jesus Arreola whose DACA was revoked because he was charged, yet not found guilty, of a crime he never committed

Arguments: According to the ACLU, these revocations have taken place without notice or an opportunity for the young immigrants to present their case. Therefore, it violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the Due Process Clause in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Maryland Judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration decision to end the DACA program.

Please note: this is the first ruling against DACA
Name of the case: CASA DE MARYLAND, et al. v U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
Judge Roger Titus US District Court of Maryland argued that immigration policy is not to be set by the President.
The judge says that congress should find a solution and that he is sympathetic to dreamers.

A third Judge (this time in Washington DC) rules that the termination of the DACA program is unlawful and it orders the administration to accept both new applications and renewals. However, the judge gives the government 90 days before the ruling takes effect; during this time, the administration will provide a better explanation about why it ended DACA.
Name of the case: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al., v. Donald J Trump, et al.,
Trustees of Princeton University, et al., v. United States of America, et al.,
Judge John Bates (George W. Bush appointee) from the District Court for Washington, D.C. found Trump’s termination of DACA unlawful.

Bates said that the end of the program was “arbitrary and capricious” and that DHS failed to “adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful”
The D.C. decision orders USCIS to accept new applications from people who have never had DACA before. However, the court paused its order from going into effect for a period of 90 days to better explain (argue) the case.
We do not know how the administration will respond.

Right now, you can still apply to renew your DACA
If you have never applied for DACA before, you cannot apply now.
Advance Parole is still NOT available.
This decision is another example of what we know is true: Trump’s decision to end DACA was wrong.
Knowledge is power – see our resources to apply for renewal today.

Risk #1. The latest ruling against the Trump Administration’s decision to end the DACA program might become an incentive for the DOJ to write a new “improved” version of the memo that rescinded DACA.
Risk #2. The latest ruling might also serve as an invitation for the DOJ to seek an emergency “stay” from the appeals court and if they do not obtain it, the DOJ could even seek a stay from the Supreme Court. This, in turn, would accelerate getting the DC case to the Supreme Court, which as we know is more conservative.
Still, plaintiffs could agree on a stay.

What they want.- The suit asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to “declare DACA unlawful” and prevent the federal government from issuing any more permits.
Arguments: Rule of Law,
The Executive does not have the power to set immigration policy.
Fewer states joined.- Compared to other lawsuits led by Texas, this only counts with the support of 6 other states (down from 26).

Why now: GOP’s Frustration: A reaction to the DC ruling?.- Texas Attorney General Paxton might have changed his calculous after the DC ruling that ordered the government to accept both initial and renewal application in 90 days.
Things to consider:

SCOTUS.- This might increase the chances of that the case will get to the Supreme Court at some point given that it is a multistate conflict.
Judge Hanen.- Initially the case went to Judge Olvera, yet it was transferred to Judge Hanen who, as we know, was the one that granted a motion for the preliminary injunction that stopped DAPA and DACA+

Avoid panic. We are still assessing the legal/political implications that this can have, so no need to panic yet.
We need to encourage people to renew their DACAs.- We must call on everyone who has the opportunity to renew their DACA permits and make it clear that this lawsuit has not had an effect on the processing of renewals.
We need a legislative solution.- This legal battles only add complexity and uncertainty to the lives of immigrant youth. We need a permanent legislative solution that does not criminalize our families.

Your Sticker is on the Way!