A federal appeals court on Friday declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy unlawful, creating uncertainty for over half a million unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision, stating that a Biden administration rule aiming to institutionalize DACA is in violation of U.S. immigration law. Additionally, federal courts have deemed the 2012 Obama administration memo that initially established the policy as unlawful.
Friday’s ruling, however, will not immediately alter the current situation. The panel of judges, by suspending its order, has ensured that DACA will remain in effect for existing recipients. However, new applicants will not be able to access the program, as it has been operating in this manner for the past few years.
For over 12 years, DACA has provided a pathway for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas to live and work in the country without the constant threat of deportation. These individuals, often referred to as “Dreamers,” get their name from the Dream Act, a bipartisan initiative aimed at granting them legal status, which Congress has been unable to pass for more than two decades.
The 5th Circuit panel has affirmed the lower court order that invalidated the Biden administration’s DACA regulation. However, the panel has limited the impact of the ruling, stating that it only applies to Texas, the state leading the Republican-led lawsuit against the program. The panel has temporarily suspended the ruling’s effects on current DACA beneficiaries, allowing renewals to proceed, pending another ruling by the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court.
The panel also determined that the deportation deferrals provided by DACA could be legally distinguished from the work permits that recipients receive. This decision grants the Biden administration a partial win in its argument that the deportation protections should remain in effect even if the work authorization provision is invalidated.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency responsible for overseeing the initiative, there were approximately 538,000 immigrants enrolled in DACA as of the end of September 2024. To be eligible for the policy, individuals had to demonstrate that they arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, graduated from an American high school or joined the military, and did not have any significant criminal history.
Friday’s ruling has the potential to lead to a resolution of the long-standing legal dispute surrounding DACA. However, it remains uncertain how the incoming Trump administration will approach the case and whether it will attempt to terminate the program. While President Biden’s Justice Department has consistently defended DACA in court, the initial Trump administration sought to phase out the policy, citing its alleged unlawfulness. In 2020, the Supreme Court intervened and prevented the termination of DACA, albeit on technical grounds.
The Justice Department chose not to provide any comments regarding the court order issued on Friday.
The Trump transition team has not yet announced their approach to DACA. Trump and his advisors have made it clear that they intend to take strict measures against both illegal and legal immigration. They have promised to carry out mass deportations of those residing in the U.S. without legal status, implement stricter border controls, and reduce the number of legal admissions for immigrants and refugees.
According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the ruling by the 5th Circuit is being hailed as a victory for Texas.
“I am eager to collaborate with President-elect Donald Trump in order to restore the rule of law and put an end to the ongoing illegal immigration crisis,” stated Paxton.
Greisa Martinez Rosas, the executive director of United We Dream, a progressive group that advocates for DACA beneficiaries, condemned the court order as an “assault” on “immigrant young people.”
