WASHINGTON – After oral arguments conclude Thursday, a panel of federal judges will decide the fate of a program that has shielded from deportation more than half a million immigrants without indefinite status who came to the United States as children.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a 12-year program that was supposed to be momentary during the Obama administration while Congress passed a path to citizenship, has stalled a year-long struggle after the Trump administration decided to end the program.
Greisa Martinez Rosas, the executive director of the youth immigration organization United We Dream, said in a statement that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit should reject the “baseless lawsuit” from Texas and other states.
“DACA recipients have withstood attacks from violent, anti-immigrant officials for over a decade and kept DACA alive through their courage and resilience,” Rosas said. “I call on the president [Joe] Biden and all elected officials must treat this moment with the urgency it deserves and take bold and swift action to protect all immigrants once and for all. ”
A three-judge panel of the appeals court heard oral arguments on behalf of the program from the Justice Department, the state of New Jersey and an immigration rights group, all of which endorsed the legality of the Biden administration’s 2021 final rule codifying the program.
Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas declared it unlawful and allowed current DACA recipients to further extend their status but barred modern applicants.
The Justice Department and others asked appeals court judges to consider three things. They question whether the state of Texas has standing to prove it was harmed by DACA; whether the arrangement is lawful within the authority of the President; and whether the trial court had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction against the program.
The judges are Jerry Edwin Smith, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan; Edith Brown Clement, appointed by former President George W. Bush; and Stephen A. Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama.
The 5th District in New Orleans includes Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and typically makes conservative decisions.
Joseph N. Mazzara, arguing on behalf of the state of Texas, said DACA harmed the state because Texas incurs “pocketbook costs in terms of education and medical care.”
He said ending DACA would likely prompt recipients to self-deport and “return to their country of origin,” which he said would reduce the financial cost to Texas.
It can take weeks or months for a verdict to be reached probably go to the US Supreme Courtand the fate of DACA could be left to the modern administration.
In a statement at the hearing Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, criticized the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, for “targeting young people who pledged allegiance to America as children.”
“Regardless of the outcome of this case, we should be clear about what this election is about,” she said. “Donald Trump tried to end DACA once, and if he gets the chance, he won’t rest until he succeeds.”
The Supreme Court in 2020 reversed the Trump administration’s decision to end the program, but on the grounds that the White House did not follow due process. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the program itself was unlawful or not.
reputation of the states
Brian Boynton argued on behalf of the Biden administration.
He argued that the eight states that, along with Texas, sued the Biden administration had no standing to sue because they had not proven harm caused by DACA.
Other states challenging DACA include Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.
“Every person in the state of Texas, whether citizen or non-citizen, is entitled to the exact same types of services, emergency health care and K through 12 public education,” he said. “It’s not a situation where only someone with DACA is eligible for the services.”
Boynton urged the panel to uphold U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s policy of upholding DACA for current recipients – about 535,000 people – if the court decides to end the program while DACA remains under appeal.
Hanen ruled in 2021 that DACA was unlawful, Finding that the Obama administration exceeded its presidential authority in creating the program. He allowed current DACA recipients to remain in the program but banned the federal government from accepting modern applicants.
It is estimated that 95,000 applicants will be blocked as a result of this order. according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The Biden administration then went through the formal rule, which Hanen reviewed and re-declared unlawful, leading to the appeal before the three judges.
Boynton spoke out against a nationwide injunction banning DACA recipients from applying for the program.
“As to the appropriateness of statewide injunctions, it is very clear that an injunction should be narrowly worded to provide relief only to the aggrieved party, and that would be Texas,” he said.
Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund argued that Texas included in its legal arguments spending costs on students in K-12 schools who cannot be DACA recipients because those recipients are over 18 and opted out of the program are.
Perales addressed the health care argument from Texas, saying Texas did not report the health care costs incurred only for DACA recipients.
“Texas points to health care spending for the entire undocumented immigrant population, as Texas estimates,” she said. “No DACA recipients.”
“It is well established that DACA recipients represent a net benefit to their state overall,” she added.
