Seven states—Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia—filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, to stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The lawsuit claims that the 2012 executive action creating DACA was unlawful, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs note that the court “has authority to immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful,” but states that plaintiffs “are amenable to a remedy that enjoins Defendants from issuing or renewing DACA permits in the future, effectively phasing out the program within two years.”
In another DACA case, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) celebrated a “huge victory for DACA recipients around the nation.” A federal court in Washington, DC, found legally insufficient a memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminating the DACA program and struck down the memorandum unless DHS can offer a stronger basis for ending the program, the NAACP noted.
Federal Judge John Bates said the decision by the Trump administration to rescind DACA was “virtually unexplained” and as such “unlawful.” He gave DHS 90 days to provide a legally sufficient explanation. If DHS fails to provide an explanation that meets legal muster, the NAACP noted, “DACA will be vacated in its entirety and DHS will be required to maintain the program for current enrollees and to accept and process applications from new enrollees who meet the program’s eligibility rules.”
With the morass of DACA-related cases filed, some decided in favor of DACA recipients, and amid potentially disparate results, the issue could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.