Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• June 22, 2018

  DACA Memorandum from Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen

  In response to an order from the DC District Court, DHS Secretary Nielsen issues an updated DACA rescission memo. The Nielsen memo "concurs with and declines to disturb" the September 2017 Duke memorandum, while purporting to provide more details on why the government decided to end DACA: First, DACA is contrary to law under Texas v. United States and incompatible with the INA's regulatory scheme. Second, DHS is not sufficiently confident in the legality of DACA as a discretionary enforcement policy. Third, DACA was not implemented by Congress and lacks the detail and permanence of a statute. The Nielsen Memorandum also outlines guidance for individualized, case-by-case prosecutorial discretion.

  View Document
• June 18, 2020

  Supreme Court DACA Decision

  The Supreme Court rules that DHS's rescission of DACA was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
  
  **Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

  View Document
• July 28, 2020

  Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”

  Following the Supreme Court’s June 2020 decision, DHS issued a new memo signed by Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans Chad Wolf in his role as Acting Secretary: “I have concluded that the DACA policy, at a minimum, presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission.” Wolf rescinded the Nielsen and Duke memos and announced the agency's intent to reconsider the Napolitano memo. He directed “DHS personnel to take all appropriate actions to reject all pending and future initial requests for DACA,” prohibited advance parole absent exceptional circumstances, and limited DACA beneficiaries to one-year renewals rather than two.

  View Document
• August 28, 2020

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

  The following states/DC 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

  Batalla-Vidal v. Wolf, 16-cv-4756 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2020)

  In Batalla-Vidal v. Wolf, No. 16-cv-4756, Make the Road New York filed an amended complaint challenging Wolf's memo and its effects. On November 14, 2020, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and held that Acting DHS Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving under the Homeland Security Act (HSA) when he issued the revised DACA memo.

  The court subsequently vacated the Wolf Memorandum and ordered DHS along with mailed notice to “post a public notice, within 3 calendar days . . . that it is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under DACA,” covering renewals and advance parole requests as well. See http://slnews.us/pbgl120420a.

  **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. 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 ordered 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 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 unanimously upheld the 2021 district court ruling enjoining DACA and vacating the 2012 DHS memorandum establishing it. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district 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 recently promulgated a new DACA regulation, and therefore remanded the case to the District Court to consider the regulation's legality. In addition, the Fifth Circuit agreed to maintain the 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
• September 13, 2023

  2023.09.13 State of Texas et al. v. U.S. et al., case number 1:18-cv-00068 (S.D. Texas, 9/13/23)

  U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the final Biden administration rule published in August 2022 is "not materially different" from the Obama administration policy that was also invalidated by federal courts. However, DHS is not currently required to "take any immigration, deportation, or criminal action against any DACA recipient, applicant, or any other individual that would not otherwise be taken."

  The Biden administration rule will now be added to the 2021 injunction issued by Judge Hanen enjoining the Obama administration policy. Under the injunction, the current administration cannot approve new DACA applications but may consider renewal applications from current DACA beneficiaries.

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

  View Document
• January 17, 2025

  2025.1.17 Texas v. United States, 23-40653 (5th Cir.)

  On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2023 ruling from the Southern District of Texas, finding that Texas still had standing to challenge DACA and that DACA is substantively unlawful. It modified the district court order by limiting the injunction to Texas only (rather than nationwide) and preserving the stay that allows current recipients to renew their DACA protections. Texas v. United States, 23-40653 (5th Cir. 2025).

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

  View Document
• January 24, 2025

  2025.1.24 USCIS Alert: Update on DACA

  In response to the 5th Circuit's January 17, 2025, decision in Texas v. United States, USCIS published an alert (last updated January 24, 2025) on its website stating:

  "USCIS will continue to accept and process DACA renewal requests and pending applications for employment authorizations under the DACA regulations at 8 CFR 236.22 and 236.23. USCIS will continue to accept initial requests but will not process initial DACA requests at this time. Current grants of DACA and related Employment Authorization Documents remain valid until they expire, unless individually terminated."

  View Document