The U.S. Immigration Council has not approved or opposed the selected office candidate. We aim to provide analysis on the impact of elections on immigration systems in the United States.
For nearly 13 years since the Obama administration first created an postponed behavior (DACA) Initiative, more than 500,000 people currently benefited from DACA and their families are cruel uncertainty. It exists in a state. The latest battle for the long -term court was made on January 17 by a US appeal court in the fifth round ward. At the moment, nothing is the same for those who have received DACA.
However, the battle of the ongoing court has an important impact on the DACA winners in the administration that has already ended the program, and maximizes the arrest of those who think they are illegal in the United States. Is clear. Protection against expulsion of abroad that they once received.
How did you arrive here?
The fifth round of the tournament was the end of DACA in 2018, in 2018, in 2018, Texas and other states are dismissed by the legalism of the memorandum signed by DHS secretary Janet Napolitano at the time. It started when I tried. Apart from that, the first Trump administration withdrew DACA in 2017. The plaintiff’s group opposed the withdrawal of the Trump administration’s program, and in June 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to the challenger that the Trump administration did not consider the “trust of trust.” The program violated the law. DACA was resumed for a while.
The victory was short -lived. Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court decided in July 2021 in the Texas case, determined that DACA was illegal, stopped nationwide, and approved the demands of the new DACA. Banned. Judge Hanen’s ruling led to DACA’s protection and renewed, but could not handle new demands.
The reasons for finding Hanen Judge Daca illegal include the fact that the 2012 memorandum was issued without notice and comments. The Biden administration tried to deal with the procedure issues when the rules proposed in September 2021 (“NPRM”) and the final rules in one year later. After the fifth round ward supported the decision of Judge Hanen, who judged DACA illegal in 2022, he sent a lawsuit to the District Court to determine the legalism of the final rules.
In 2023, Judge Hanen rejected that DACA was illegal under the final rules after refusing that Texas was lacking in the initiative. Mexican Americans Legal Defense and Educational Fund).
The Supreme Court’s ruling determined that another incident, Texas, (“Migration Priority,” case), lacked Texas and Louisiana to challenge the Biden administration’s execution priority memo. Unlike immigration priority cases, DACA chooses to “do not take action” because it has opposed the exercise of discretion to anyone who should prioritize the execution of immigrants. ) I found that it involves providing positive benefits such as employment permission. 。
After discovering that Texas had a position because of his expenses such as education and healthcare from the existence of DACA recipients, Judge Hanen again decided that DACA was illegal. We have decided that we have emptied the program, issued a nationwide suspension order, and maintained the decision to not affect it. Those who first received DACA by July 16, 2021. The federal government and the interventions appealed again to the 5th round. It was the repetition of the incident on January 17, 2025.
The meaning of the ruling of the 5th round ward
The fifth round, mainly supported Judge Hanen’s decision. He pointed out the previous DACA decisions that the court had sufficient to establish Texas when providing social services to DACA recipients. Without DACA, the court would have at least some DACA winners away from the United States, reducing the cost of Texas for education, social services, and medical services. The fifth round of rounds agreed to the DACA that the priority of immigrants did not change this analysis to provide positive benefits, not just the discretion of the prosecutor. In terms of merits, the court pointed out that DACA was substantially illegal because the final rules are substantially the same as the memorandum in 2012.
The fifth round of rounds opposed the District Court in two important points.
First, Judge Hanen had banned the whole final rule, while the fifth round, determined that it could be “disconnected.” In other words, the evacuation clause may be separated from the work approval clause. In the final rules, DHS clearly pointed out that DACA components could “function independently”. This means that even if the work permission is not so, the protection of DACA’s expulsion can survive.
Second, the fifth round ward determined that if the nationwide injury order was too wide, it should be limited to Texas. Finally, the fifth round of the ward maintained the order of the district court and pointed out the “immeasurable interests created by DACA.” Again, this means that the current DACA recipients do not change immediately.
The way to move forward is not completely clear. The lawsuit has returned to the District Court in the fifth round, with the narrowing of the instructions to Texas and the DACA’s tolerance aspect of the welfare. The incident may also take the path to the Supreme Court. Importantly, even in Texas, DACA recipients can maintain their current status (including work permit) because they have been staying in the district court.
With the changes in the presidential government, the Ministry of Justice may switch the position of the case and refuse to defend programs in court in the future. The Trump administration has not explicitly targeted DACA as part of a series of harsh execution behaviors on immigrants, but is hostile to the program that Trump White House and DHS have already ended once. There is no secret. There is no reason DACA will escape legal protection and maximize how to arrest non -citizens and expel the country. At the same time, at least in 2007, it does not change in the direct period of DACAs in the United States due to program conditions, but it depends on the political quarrel and is a fight in the court.
Submitted below: 5th round, Trump administration
