New Orleans Hearing Suggests Possible Changes to DACA
In New Orleans, a federal appeals court seems less inclined to completely overturn a ruling that could end the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. This program protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. During a hearing on Thursday, judges from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals displayed a willingness to consider allowing parts of the program to remain in place. This hearing adds another chapter to the ongoing six-year legal battle surrounding DACA.
DACA Overview
DACA was initiated in 2012 under the Obama administration. It allows eligible undocumented immigrants, often referred to as “Dreamers,” to work and study in the U.S. without the fear of deportation. Currently, more than half a million immigrants benefit from this program. However, the state of Texas, along with eight other states, contends that DACA burdens them with increased public healthcare and educational expenses related to these noncitizens. They argue that if DACA were terminated, many of these immigrants would choose to leave the country.
Legal Arguments at Play
At the hearing, an attorney representing New Jersey, which is supporting the Biden administration’s defense of DACA, emphasized that many U.S. citizens depend on the continuation of this program. This includes the children of DACA recipients who rely on their parents’ ability to work due to the protections and work permits DACA provides.
The current legal situation stems from a previous ruling by US District Judge Andrew Hanen, who was appointed by George W. Bush. Hanen decided to end DACA for both current and future recipients but allowed current enrollees to maintain their status while the appeal process is underway. This effectively pauses the impact of his ruling but leaves uncertainty for the future.
State of the Legal Battle
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, expressed satisfaction after the hearing, suggesting that the court was receptive to their arguments. Paxton noted, “I have fought every step of the way to uphold the Constitution against illegal workarounds and look forward to defeating DACA—in its entirety—permanently.”
On the other hand, the Biden administration argues that Texas does not have the legal standing to challenge the program. During the proceedings, one of the judges, Jerry Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, indicated that they may not find much success in proving Texas’s standing. However, he also showed interest in the Justice Department’s mention of a severability clause found in the final DACA regulation established during the Biden administration. This clause could allow the court to strike down certain elements of DACA while keeping other parts intact.
Possible Outcomes
Smith referred to the severability clause as “significant.” This hints at a potential ruling where the benefits of DACA, such as work authorization, could be eliminated while still offering protection from deportation for existing DACA recipients. Another judge, Edith Brown Clement, who was appointed by George W. Bush, raised concerns about the broad nature of the trial judge’s ruling during the proceedings.
Across various legal discussions, the Supreme Court has previously indicated that lower courts should be cautious about issuing nationwide injunctions, which could be a point of contention in deciding the fate of DACA. As the appeal moves forward, the future of the program remains uncertain, leaving thousands of immigrants and their families anxious about what may come next.
