Cases Challenging the Termination of the DACA Program

For information about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Jan. 13, 2018, announcement that it is accepting DACA renewal applications, see our FAQ: USCIS Is Accepting DACA Renewal Applications, first posted Jan. 14, 2018.

Cases Challenging the Termination of the DACA Program

APRIL 2018

On Sep. 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced that it was terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which was created during President Obama’s administration. Under the terms of the DACA termination, everyone who had filed a first-time or a renewal application for DACA as of Sep. 5, 2017, would continue to have their applications processed. And anyone with a grant of DACA expiring between Sep. 5, 2017, and Mar. 5, 2018, could apply for a two-year renewal of their DACA. Originally, the deadline to submit renewal applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was October 5, 2017. No other DACA applications were accepted.

However, due to two court orders — in Regents of the University of California, et al. v. DHS and Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen — USCIS is accepting DACA renewal applications. Under these injunctions, anyone who has had DACA in the past may apply, although those whose DACA expired on or before Sep. 4, 2016, must file as if they were applying for the first time. A person who’s had DACA may now apply to renew it regardless of when their DACA expired and even if their application was previously rejected for not meeting the Oct. 5, 2017, deadline. For information on the orders and the application process, see NILC’s Frequently Asked Questions: USCIS Is Accepting DACA Renewal Applications.

More than ten cases have been filed challenging the Trump administration’s termination of the DACA program. This table provides information about only the cases with the most traction as of its publication date. The table was created for easy reference and is not intended to be comprehensive. The plaintiffs in these cases brought claims primarily under the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses; some brought claims of estoppel. NILC is counsel only in the Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen case. For further information about the other cases described in the table, you may want to contact the entities involved in them (listed in the table) or read the complaints to which the table hyperlinks.

To download the table, click on the PDF icon, above.