But even with regulation, DACA remains in legal danger. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who closed DACA to new plaintiffs in July 2021, ruled that the policy itself violated federal immigration law, as Texas and other Republican-led states argued in a lawsuit. In anticipation of a defeat in the Court of Appeals, the Biden administration codified DACA into regulatory law in August and struck down the 2012 U.S. memo at the time. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who originally founded DACA. The legal decision was aimed at countering the July 2021 decision of U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Houston, who said the Obama administration had illegally introduced DACA. But the program has always had opponents who have expressed concerns over the years about its legality and illegal immigration to the United States. DACA has faced many challenges since its inception, with growing concerns in recent years that dreamers could lose their protection.

The Trump administration has made its voice heard on its intention to end DACA. On September 5, 2017, Elaine Duke, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced a DACA “resolution” by repealing the 2012 DACA policy in a brief memorandum stating that the policy was likely to be deemed illegal (“Duke Memorandum”). Although the Supreme Court allowed DACA to survive in 2020, its legal future is more uncertain than ever. With a negative ruling by Justice Andrew Hanen in 2021 and the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court likely to uphold key elements of Hanen`s decision on appeal, DACA could already be vital. Even with the Biden administration`s imminent release of a final rule to address Hanen`s objections to the policy-making process in 2012, the rule is unlikely to address his substantive objections to the rule. Ultimately, various challenges to the Trump administration`s repeal of DACA in the Duke Memorandum were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. On Wednesday, President Biden called on lawmakers to legalize Dreamers, calling them “an integral part of the fabric of this nation.” The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held a hearing in July on the Biden administration`s appeal against Hanen`s decision, is expected to issue an opinion on the legality of DACA later this year. The conservative Court of Appeals should side with Republican state officials who argue that DACA is illegal.

The Biden administration could appeal such a decision to the Supreme Court. Former President Donald Trump`s administration has tried to end DACA and reduce it, calling it illegal. However, its efforts have been halted by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which said in June 2020 that officials had not followed proper procedures to end the program. Erika Andiola, a DACA recipient and director of communications at the Young Center for Immigrant Children`s Rights, said Congress and President Joe Biden must approve the permanent legalization of DACA recipients because the program has been the subject of several legal challenges. On the 28th. In July 2020, Chad Wolf, who claimed to be acting Secretary of Homeland Security, released a new memo (the Wolf Memo) aimed at dismantling DACA again. Wolf`s memo asked DHS staff to reject all initial pending and future applications for DACA, reject all pending and future probation applications without “extraordinary circumstances,” and shorten DACA renewals from two years to one year. In response to Wolf`s note, Batalla Vidal`s plaintiffs amended their complaint and challenged the publication of Wolf`s note on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious and that Chad Wolf had no legal authority to issue the note. The applicants also sought to certify the category of persons eligible for DACA under the 2012 Neapolitan Note. On the 14th.

In November 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York confirmed a class of individuals eligible for DACA under the 2012 memo and a subclass of those whose DACA applications were pending between June 30, 2020 and July 28, 2020 and were not or would not be decided under the 2012 memo. The court also found that Chad Wolf was not legally serving as secretary of DHS when he released Wolf`s memo. On December 4, 2020, the Batalla Vidal court cancelled the Wolf Memo and effectively reopened DACA. The court also ordered DHS to publicly announce that it was once again accepting applications based on how DACA was administered prior to September 5, 2017, including initial DACA applications and pre-parole applications. The court also extended to two years all DACA grants and work permits that had only been granted for one year. On the 10th. In December 2020, the court ordered DHS to send notices to affected individuals whose probation and initial DACA applications under the Wolf Note were wrongfully denied, as well as to those who falsely received one-year deferred measurement grants and work permit documents (EADs) that expired after just one year. The court also ordered the government to send new work permits to EEAS one-year beneficiaries no later than 30 days before the expiry of their current EEAS.

State legal arguments against the delayed action program for child arrivals will be controversial after new government regulations go into effect, the Biden administration told a federal appeals court. Lawyers in Texas and other states challenging DACA argued that any procedural challenge to the program would not be contentious until the rule was passed on Sept. 31. ==References==Until then, the court should decide the case without considering the implications of the final rule, they said. But U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas sided with the states in July 2021, ruling that the Obama administration had “illegally implemented” the program, and he barred the administration from ruling on new applications, leaving 80,000 new plaintiffs in limbo, according to the bipartisan Migration Policy Institute. The ongoing litigation could keep DACA closed to new applicants and even lead to its complete termination, a scenario that would prevent program recipients from working in the United States. and make them fit for deportation, although they would likely not be prioritized for arrest under the Biden administration. The federal program for immigrant youth, known as “dreamers,” turns 10 on Wednesday and faces legal challenges that could end it before Congress decides whether or not to offer them a path to U.S. citizenship.

The Court of Appeal, which heard oral arguments on July 6, is considering arguments regarding the legality of DACA. Current DACA recipients will not be immediately affected by the decision, which is expected to be challenged in court. But this setback, in addition to previous Trump administration attacks and other DACA legal challenges, continues to make it clear: only legislation — not litigation — will provide permanent protection for DACA recipients. Other benefits that come from DACA and a work permit include the ability to legally obtain a Social Security number and state ID cards or driver`s licenses. In addition, DACA recipients may be able to apply for temporary permission to leave the United States for professional, educational, or emergency reasons and then return, even if they would not normally be able to return legally. However, DACA does not provide legal status and no pathway to permanent status, such as a green card or citizenship. Since DACA was created by executive measures and not by legislation, DACA can generally be revoked by other executive measures. DACA recipients and those who are eligible for DACA but have not yet received DACA are in a permanent legal vacuum and continue to have no legal status and no path to permanent residence and citizenship. Finally, the origin of DACA as an executive policy (as opposed to legislation) has also exposed it to legal challenges, with recent court decisions making its future uncertain. Meanwhile, Texas and eight other states filed a separate lawsuit in 2018 questioning the program`s constitutionality, arguing that the Obama administration had exceeded its powers by creating an immigration program without congressional approval. The lawsuit led to years of litigation.

Despite the Trump-era legal victories for the Dreamers, DACA`s legal challenges have continued. A group of Republican attorneys general threatened a federal dispute against DACA in 2017 and helped initiate the Duke Memorandum. The lawsuit, which was eventually filed in 2018 in the Southern District of Texas, has been widely referred to as the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California made its way to the Supreme Court. The lawsuit filed by state-owned GAs, who were seeking the complete termination of DACA, was resumed following the June 2020 Supreme Court decision. October 2022 Update: On October 6, 2022, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA was illegal and referred the case to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to determine the legality of the new DACA Final Rule. Given the similarity between the 2022 Final Rule and the original DACA Directive, Hanen should consider the new rule illegal. The final 5-4 decision allowed DACA to move forward and submit applications for the first time from eligible Dreamers.