Today, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas temporarily blocked two of President Obama’s Executive Action programs, the expanded DACA program (or DACA II), and the DAPA program.  DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, has been in effect since 2012. But the new expanded version of that program due to begin on February 18, 2015 has been halted by the temporary injunction order in Texas v. United States.  The Deferred Action for Parent Accountability (DAPA) program is to begin in mid-May 2015, and it, too, has been temporarily halted by this order.  An explanation of both programs was previously posted on this blog: Expanded DACA II Starts February 18, 2015 and Obama’s Executive Action Creates DAPA. Judge Hanen held that the plaintiff states have standing to proceed with the lawsuit; that the President’s action, via the US Department of Homeland Security’s prosecutorial discretion memo of November 20, 2014, failed to follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act when DHS “legislated a substantive rule.” The Court did not rule on the plaintiff’s further claim that the Executive Action violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.

The temporary injunction means that the DHS, and more specifically, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), are blocked from accepting DACA II applications as planned on February 18, 2015.  Meanwhile, the parties in the lawsuit are to meet and confer and file with the judge by February 27, 2015 their plan to resolve the merits of the case.  The defendant, the federal government, will mostly likely appeal the injunction order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where it is possible the Court of Appeals panel of judges could reverse Judge Hansen’s ruling.  Therefore, it is still possible for DACA II and DAPA to start later on.

The plaintiffs in the case are 26 states led by Texas.  Most of the plaintiff states have the highest populations of potential DACA and DAPA applicants along the southern border, and, therefore, also claim to be harmed the most by illegal immigration, or DHS’ failure to deport people in the area. They also claim their budgets will be strained to accommodate so many new people with authorization to stay in the USA.  The plaintiffs challenge DHS’s authority to declare and implement DACA II and DAPA.  The defendants are the DHS and its agencies charged with implementing DACA and DAPA.  Another 12 states headed by Washington plus the District of Columbia, plus many cities filed amicus briefs siding with the President, while many members of Congress and other organizations filed amicus briefs on both sides.  In an ironic twist, the City of Brownsville where this case is filed, signed on to the briefs favoring the President’s action.

DACA I that has been in effect since 2012, has withstood a prior challenge and is not covered by Judge Hanen’s order. Therefore, people eligible for DACA I can continue to file new cases as well as renewals.   DACA I requires applicants to be no more than 31 years old as of June 15, 2012; they must have entered the US before age 16; they must have been out of status as of June 15, 2007 and been in the US continuously since that date and on June 15, 2012; and must meet certain education requirements, not have a felony or three or more misdemeanors, or be a security or safety risk.  DACA II would remove the 31 year old age limit, and move up the earliest required residence date to January 1, 2010.

Check back with this blog frequently as well as the USCIS website for more details and updates.