A federal judge recently ruled against a modified version of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects numerous immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors from deportation.
Though the judge expressed concerns regarding the program’s legality, he stopped short of terminating it immediately, thereby preserving the protections for existing recipients, according to The Associated Press.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen sided with Texas and eight other states that challenged the DACA policy’s legitimacy.
In his 40-page decision, Judge Hanen stated, “While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time.”
He emphasized that any remedy for these legal issues should come from Congress:
“The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation,” the judge said. “The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution – even to fill a void.”
DACA has been the subject of significant debate since its inception in 2012 under the Obama administration.
The states contesting it argue that the former administration bypassed Congress in its establishment.
Moreover, in 2021, Judge Hanen labeled DACA illegal, contending it hadn’t undergone the necessary public notice and commentary stipulated by the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
Responding to the aforementioned concerns, the Biden administration unveiled a revised DACA in October 2022, incorporating public feedback through an official rule-making procedure.
However, Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee from 2002, maintained his stance, stating that the Biden administration’s updated version essentially mirrored the original Obama-era policy, which he deemed unconstitutional.
Furthermore, Hanen’s ruling sustains an existing injunction against the policy, prohibiting the approval of new DACA applications while the legal examination continues.
Despite requests from the states, Hanen refrained from prescribing a two-year termination timeline for the program.
He emphasized, “his order does not require the federal government to take any actions against DACA recipients,” commonly referred to as “Dreamers.”
Thomas Saenz, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), representing DACA recipients in this lawsuit, expressed that the final judgment on DACA’s legality would likely come from the Supreme Court or other higher courts.
In their challenge, the states, including Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, and Mississippi, cite significant financial burdens due to the policy.
They assert that the program’s continuation results in increased costs related to health care, education, and other sectors when immigrants remain in the U.S. unlawfully.
As of March, data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indicates that 578,680 individuals are active DACA recipients.
