District Court Enjoins DACA Phase-Out: Explanation and Takeaways (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Revised April 26, 2018 |
| Report Number |
LSB10057 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Hillel R. Smith, Coordinator; Ben Harrington, Coordinator |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised March 7, 2018 (3 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 11, 2018 (3 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Jan. 1, 2018 (3 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Since the Trump Administration announced in September 2017 a phase-out of the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, a number of lawsuits have been brought challenging the action as
unconstitutional or contrary to federal laws governing agency rulemaking procedures. The Obama
Administration implemented DACA in 2012 to provide work authorization and administrative relief from
immigration enforcement action to certain unlawfully present aliens who entered the United States as
children. The Trump Administration, however, has taken the position that the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) does not authorize DACA and the initiative is not a valid exercise of the Executive’s
independent constitutional authority. On January 9, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in the case of Regents of University of California
v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security limiting the DACA phase-out to aliens not yet enrolled in
DACA. The decision, which seems likely to be appealed by the Trump Administration, may have
immediate consequences for the disposition of current DACA enrollees and, potentially, broader
consequences regarding the permissibility of the large-scale use of deferred action with respect to
unlawfully present aliens.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may set aside executive actions that are “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Having determined that the
Administration’s decision to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review, the district court reasoned
the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claim. The district court concluded that the Trump
Administration’s proffered initial reason for ending DACA was not based on a change in policy
preference but instead was grounded upon what the court viewed as a mistaken legal conclusion: the
Administration believed that DACA could not be supported by the Executive’s constitutional and existing
statutory powers, but the district court concluded otherwise.
