Subsequent Trump-Era and Court Action(s)

• August 28, 2020

  New York v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-05228-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020)

  The following states filed an amended complaint in their DACA lawsuit, challenging Wolf's memo and its effects: New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

  View Document
• November 14, 2020

  Vidal v. Wolf, No. 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020)

  In Batalla-Vidal v. Wolf, 16-cv-4756, Make the Road New York filed an amended complaint challenging Wolf's memo and its effects. On November 14, 2020, the federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for class cert and held that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act (HSA) when he issued the revised DACA memo. See also Regents of U Cal v. DHS (N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-05211) where plaintiffs are also challenging the Wolf memo.
  
  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• December 4, 2020

  Vidal v. Wolf, No. 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2020)

  On December 4, 2020, the federal District Court of the Eastern District of New York vacated the Wolf Memorandum. The court also ordered DHS to post a public notice within 3 calendar days that it is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under DACA, renewal requests, and advance parole requests according to the court's Order of November 14, 2020. DHS must also provide mailed notice to all class members and produce a status report.
  
  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• December 7, 2020

  2020.12.07 USCIS Update Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

  In response to the December 4, 2020 order issued in Batalla-Vidal v. Wolf, 16-cv-4756, USCIS announces that it will:

  • Accept first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) based on the terms of the DACA policy in effect prior to September 5, 2017, and in accordance with the Court’s December 4, 2020 order;
  • Accept DACA renewal requests based on the terms of the DACA policy in effect prior to September 5, 2017, and in accordance with the Court’s December 4, 2020 order;
  • Accept applications for advance parole documents based on the terms of the DACA policy prior to September 5, 2017, and in accordance with the Court’s December 4, 2020 order;
  • Extend one-year grants of deferred action under DACA to two years; and
  • Extend one-year employment authorization documents under DACA to two years.
  View Document
• July 16, 2021

  Texas v. Perez, No. 1:18-cv-00068 (S.D. Texas, July 16, 2021).

  U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen found DACA to be "illegal," halting the processing of applications; however, he temporarily stayed his order of permanent injunction that would vacate protections for current DACA recipients. DACA was an improper exercise of agency authority, according to the court, because the normal “notice and comment” process for adopting new rules was not followed. The court orders USCIS to cease adjudicating new applications and granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims. It vacated the June 15, 2012 DACA memorandum issued by former Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano; remanded the memorandum to DHS for further consideration; and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the government’s continued administration of DACA and the reimplementation of DACA without compliance with the APA. The Court, however, temporarily stayed its order vacating the DACA memorandum and its injunction for individuals who obtained DACA on or before July 16, 2021, including those with renewal requests.
  

  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• October 6, 2022

  State of Texas v. United States (5th Cir., October 6, 2022)

  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to uphold the 2021 ruling of a Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas enjoining the DACA program and vacating the 2012 DHS memorandum establishing the program. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court’s finding that the DACA program violated the Administrative Procedure Act both procedurally and substantively because the program did not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking and was, in the court’s view, inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

  However, the Fifth Circuit noted that the Biden Administration has recently promulgated a new DACA regulation, and therefore remanded the case to the District Court to consider the legality of the recently issued DACA regulation. That regulation, which is slated to take effect on October 31, 2022, preserves the main aspects of the original DACA program established by the 2012 DHS memorandum.

  In addition, the Fifth Circuit agreed to maintain the current stay that temporarily preserves the program for current DACA beneficiaries. The court ordered the stay to remain in effect pending further order from the Fifth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document