- The 5th Circuit has maintained the status quo of the DACA program for now.
- But he sent a recent effort to consolidate the policy to a lower court for further consideration.
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that an Obama-era policy that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the United States because the children violated federal law, but he sent a Biden administration effort to consolidate the program to a lower federal court for further review.
The decision of a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, sided with Texas and other conservative states that filed suit in 2018 but maintained the status what for the Deferred Action Program for Childhood Arrivals.
The court clarified that it was not ruling on a new regulations created by the Biden administration in August in order to protect the program from legal challenges. The appeals court returned the case to the federal district court for reconsideration of this rule. The Obama-era memorandum in question was already set to expire at the end of this month.
“There is no ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power claimed by DHS,” the appeals court said. “DACA violates the substantive requirements of” federal law that prescribes how federal agencies are supposed to approve new policies, the court said.
Created by former President Barack Obama in 2012, the DACA policy has ended deportations and granted work permits to certain immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children – a group known as of “Dreamers”. By 2018, more than 814,000 people had benefited from the policy, according to some estimates cited in court records.
“This incorrect decision does not take away DACA protections from anyone today, but it does allow state officials to continue their efforts to end the program,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrant Rights Project at the ‘ACLU. “As a result, Dreamers and their families will continue to live in uncertainty and fear that the limited protections they have could disappear at any moment.”
Assistants to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rewrite:Biden administration takes steps to ‘preserve and fortify’ DACA program
deputy :Biden could end Trump-era ‘stay in Mexico’ policy for migrants, High Court says
Supporters including President Joe Biden have said the policy helps people who have no choice but to enter the United States and have few ties to their home country. Critics said it forced taxpayers to bear the cost of social services for people who were in the country illegally.
A federal Texas District Court ruled last year that Obama violated federal law when it used an executive order to create the program, in part because the administration did not seek comment on its impact from the general public. The judge in that case suspended new DACA applications but allowed current registrants to remain.
Former president Donald Trump untied the DACA program in 2017, but in a Supreme Court case decided three years later, a 5-4 majority said the Republican president failed to follow the law in ending the program. In this case, the leader Justice John Roberts joined four Liberal justices to allow the policy to continue.
But the composition of the High Court has since changed: just two years later the Tories now enjoy a 6-3 advantage and four of them have already signaled they have deep reservations about DACA . In the 2020 High Court decision, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said he believed the policy was illegal. He was joined by Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Associate Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately and slammed Roberts’ decision for maintaining uncertainty surrounding the program’s legal status.
The case will likely end up in the Supreme Court eventually.
The Biden administration has tried to strengthen the policy in response to the decision of the district court. The Department of Homeland Security announced a new rule in late August that sought to give DACA a more formal legal basis than Obama’s original order. The ministry had, for example, offered a more in-depth explanation of the policy and solicited public comment.
