Skip to content

Texas Judge Deals Blow to Biden Administration, Rules DACA Unconstitutional

A Texas judge has ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy issued by executive order under the Obama administration, suspended under the Trump administration, and restored by the Biden administration, after all is said and done, is… unconstitutional.

“A federal district judge in Texas has found the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program unconstitutional, striking a blow to the Obama-era policy that has protected more than 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation since 2012,” NPR reported.

“The largely expected decision leaves the fate of thousands of the program’s beneficiaries, known as DREAMers, in the hands of Congress, the Biden administration and a Supreme Court where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority,” the report continued.

“U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of nine conservative-led states, including Texas, blocking the Biden administration from accepting new DACA applicants – saying the program is not legal,” NPR added.

“DHS violated the APA with the creation of DACA and its continued operation,” the court ruled. “The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff States is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the individual Defendant-Intervenors is denied. The Government’s request for a remand without vacatur is granted in part and denied in part. The DACA Memorandum and the DACA program that it created are hereby vacated and remanded to DHS for further consideration, as requested.”

“Nevertheless, these rulings do not resolve the issue of the hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients and others who have relied upon this program for almost a decade,” the ruling continued. “That reliance has not diminished and may, in fact, have increased over time. Therefore, the order of immediate vacatur as it applies to current DACA recipients (but not the order of remand) is temporarily stayed until a further order of this Court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court.”

“DHS may continue to accept new DACA applications and renewal DACA applications as it has been ordered to by the Batalla Vidal court cited above, but it is hereby enjoined from approving any new DACA applications and granting the attendant status,” the ruling said. “A separate injunction order will be entered to that effect. To be clear, neither this order nor the accompanying injunction requires DHS or the Department of Justice to take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that it would not otherwise take.”

Therefore, those who have been shielded from deportation under DACA are safe from immediate action and can submit cases through an appeals process.

“This consideration, along with the Government’s assertion that it is ready and willing to try to remedy the legal defects of the DACA program, indicates that equity will not be served by a complete and immediate cessation of DACA,” Hanen wrote in the decision.

“The ruling stems from a 2018 lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and eight other states, against the federal argument,” the Texas Tribune reported. “The complaint argues that Texas and the other states face irreparable harm because they bear extra costs from providing health care, education and law enforcement protection to DACA recipients.”

“Across the country there are more than 600,000 DACA recipients, including 101,970 in Texas, which has the second most DACA recipients in the country after California, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,” the report added.

Hanen said in his ruling that DACA is illegal for the obvious reason that Congress didn’t authorize it.

This is breaking news. It will updated as more information is forthcoming.

"*" indicates required fields

Who would you vote for? Trump or DeSantis?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.