Obama's Daca: Lawful Or Unlawful?

In 2012, former US President Barack Obama launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provided a two-year deportation reprieve for young people who entered the US as children with no lawful immigration status. The program has faced legal challenges, with critics arguing that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in implementing it. While some courts have ruled that Obama's actions were unlawful, others have found that the program is lawful and necessary to protect young immigrants. The debate over the legality of DACA continues, with the Supreme Court playing a pivotal role in shaping its future.

Obama's expansion of DACA blocked by courts

In 2014, President Barack Obama announced his intention to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to cover additional undocumented immigrants. The proposed expansion would have made undocumented immigrants who entered the US before 2010 eligible for DACA, eliminated the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthened the renewable deferral period to two years.

However, Obama's proposed expansion of DACA was blocked by the courts. In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asking the court to prevent the implementation of the DACA expansion. In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the expansion while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded through the court system.

The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court, which, in 2016, was evenly divided (4-4) and left the injunction in place, preventing the expansion of DACA. The Supreme Court's ruling did not set any precedent, and it did not affect the existing DACA program. However, the blocked expansion meant that the number of eligible people would not increase by about 330,000 as initially proposed.

While the expansion of DACA was blocked, the program itself has faced ongoing legal challenges and has been ruled unlawful by some courts. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's attempt to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious, but it did not rule on the merits of DACA itself. More recently, in 2023, a district court in Texas ruled the DACA program unlawful, and the case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump's attempts to end DACA

In 2017, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would be ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, calling it an "unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch". However, the Trump administration's attempts to end DACA were blocked by the Supreme Court in 2020, which found that the termination was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to consider the protections from deportation that DACA provided and the hardship that rescinding it would cause for recipients.

Despite this setback, the Trump administration indicated that it would try again to eliminate DACA protections. In September 2023, a district court in Texas ruled the DACA program unlawful, preventing the Biden administration from implementing new regulations. However, the Supreme Court's decision in 2020 showed that ending DACA was within the Trump administration's power, and it was possible that they would try again.

DACA and the Administrative Procedure Act

The Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy has faced legal challenges since its creation in 2012. The policy, which allows certain immigrants brought to the US as children to escape deportation and obtain work permits, has been criticised as an abuse of executive power.

In 2018, a federal court ruled that the Trump administration's attempt to end the DACA program was "arbitrary and capricious" and a potential violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires government agencies to show that their actions are not "arbitrary or capricious" and that they have considered the interests of parties relying on their programs.

In 2020, the US Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the APA by failing to address important factors when deciding to rescind the DACA program in 2017. The DHS failed to consider whether to retain forbearance and the potential hardship to DACA recipients, raising doubts about whether it appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised it reasonably.

In 2021, President Joe Biden reinstated DACA through an executive order. However, in 2021, a federal judge ruled that the program was "created in violation of the law" and "illegally implemented," barring new applications while allowing current recipients to maintain their status during the appeals process.

In 2023, an appeal was brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether a federal district court order that would terminate DACA based on its violation of federal law should be upheld. The outcome of this appeal and the future of the DACA program remain uncertain.

DACA and the DREAM Act

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was created by the Barack Obama administration in 2012. It was established through a memo by then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, which directed the agency not to deport some of the undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children. Instead, these immigrants were enrolled in DACA.

DACA has faced legal challenges, with a federal court ruling in 2018 that the Trump administration did not adequately explain its rationale for ending the program. The court gave the government 90 days to justify its decision before requiring the Department of Homeland Security to resume accepting new DACA applicants.

The Dream Act is proposed legislation that aims to protect certain immigrants who entered the United States as children but face potential deportation. The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001, and since then, at least 20 versions of the bill have been proposed in Congress. While none have become law, the 2010 bill came closest to passage.

The Dream Act of 2023, introduced in the Senate, and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023, introduced in the House, are among the most recent versions of the legislation. These bills aim to provide a path to citizenship for "Dreamers", including some "documented" Dreamers who face the risk of "aging out" of their temporary legal status when they turn 21.

The three steps outlined in the current versions of the Dream Act include obtaining conditional permanent resident status, lawful permanent residence, and naturalization. To be eligible for conditional permanent resident status, individuals must have come to the United States as children, meet certain educational requirements, and not have been convicted of certain crimes. Lawful permanent residence can be obtained by satisfying requirements related to higher education, military service, or work. Finally, after maintaining lawful permanent residence for five years, individuals can apply for U.S. citizenship through the standard naturalization process.

DACA and state responses

In 2012, the Barack Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program with a memo. Janet Napolitano, then-secretary of homeland security, directed the agency not to deport some of the undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children.

DACA has been under threat in court since its inception, with anti-immigrant politicians relentlessly attacking the program. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end DACA, deeming it an "unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch." However, federal courts blocked these efforts, finding that the Trump administration did not provide adequate reasoning for ending the program.

The Biden administration has attempted to fortify DACA by allowing for public comment and publishing a final rule in 2022 that would codify the program. Despite these efforts, the future of DACA remains uncertain due to ongoing legal challenges. A federal appeals court ruled in October 2022 that the original 2012 DACA policy was unlawful, and the program is currently subject to a freeze on the granting of initial requests.

At the state level, California and Illinois, which are home to large shares of DACA recipients, provide fully state-funded health coverage to individuals regardless of immigration status. These states' actions help to address the higher uninsured rates among DACA recipients, who are ineligible for many federal health programs.

Frequently asked questions