DACA Litigation Over the Years
2012
DHS announces DACA, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion which temporarily protects certain noncitizens who entered the U.S. as a youth from deportation and grants work authorization upon showing of economic need.
2014
President Obama announced an expansion to DACA and a new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).
2015
The U.S. District Court of Arizona rules in Arizona Dream Act Coalition (ADAC) v. Brewer.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Crane v. Johnson.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules in Arpaio v. Obama.
2016
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Texas, preventing both DAPA and the DACA expansion from being implemented.
2017
The Trump administration announces the end of DACA.
2018
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rules in Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, a case brought by NILC and co-counsel.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rules in NAACP v. Trump.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
2019
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
2020
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a consolidation of three cases that each challenged the end of DACA.
The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York certifies the request class in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf and vacates the Wolf Memo.
2021
The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas rules in Texas v. U.S., a lawsuit from Texas and several other states challenging DACA on Administrative Procedure Act and other grounds.
2022
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Texas v. U.S., finding that DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that DHS had exceeded its authority in enacting DACA.
2023
The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas rules in Texas v. U.S., holding the 2022 DACA final rule as unlawful.
2024
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule, known as the ACA DACA rule, to make DACA recipients eligible to purchase health coverage and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.
Kansas and several other states file suit challenging the legality of the ACA DACA rule, asking the District Court of North Dakota to block it.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holds oral arguments in Texas v. U.S., reviewing the district court’s decision that the 2022 DACA rule was unlawful. Arguments focus on the suing states’ standing, the severability of the rule, and the proper scope of remedy.
2025
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision modifying the injunction but keeping the stay pending appeal.
Milestones, Explained
June 15, 2012: DACA Announced via DHS Memo
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was created by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012. DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion which temporarily protects certain noncitizens who entered the U.S. as youth from deportation and makes them eligible for work authorization upon a showing of economic need.
November 20, 2014: DACA expansion and DAPA
President Obama announced an expansion to DACA and a new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). This action expanded the population eligible for DACA and extended the period of work authorization and protection from deportation for DACA recipients from two years to three years. Further, DAPA made certain parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents eligible for deferred action and employment authorization, provided they met the eligibility criteria.
January 22, 2015: Arizona Dream Act Coalition (ADAC) v. Brewer
Court: District Court of Arizona
NILC, the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and MALDEF challenged Arizona’s denial of drivers’ license to DACA recipients, arguing that the ban violates DACA recipients’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the principles of federal supremacy in the area of immigration policy. The court found Arizona’s actions violated DACA recipients’ rights to equal protection and permanently blocked the discriminatory ban.
April 7, 2015: Crane v. Johnson
Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
The state of Mississippi and several deportation officers challenged DACA because it stopped them from deporting certain undocumented immigrants. They alleged DACA recipients cost the state money in education, healthcare, law enforcement, and lost tax revenue. The court found the state did not have standing because it could not show it was directly harmed by DACA and dismissed the case.
August 14, 2015: Arpaio v. Obama
Court: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
A notoriously anti-immigrant county sheriff brought an action challenging the constitutionality and legality of DACA and DAPA, arguing the programs increased the number of undocumented immigrants and the amount of crime in Arizona. The court found there was no link between the programs, an increase in undocumented immigrants, and an increased crime rate. The sheriff did not have standing to bring the case, so the case was dismissed.
June 23, 2016: U.S. v. Texas
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Several states had challenged the legality of the new DAPA program and the DACA expansion on constitutional and procedural grounds. The Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision left in place the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction to prevent both DAPA and the DACA expansion from being implemented.
September 5, 2017: Trump administration announced the ending of DACA
Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke announced the winding down of DACA. Her reasoning for ending DACA was ostensibly based on an assessment from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that DACA allegedly conflicted with federal immigration law.
February 13, 2018: Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
This case originated as a challenge to the revocation of a DACA recipient’s three-year employment authorization based on the 2016 Texas v. United States case which blocked both DAPA and the expansion of DACA. Subsequently, counsel in the case, including NILC, amended the complaint to add a challenge to the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind DACA. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims and likely to suffer harm and issued a nationwide injunction blocking the recission of DACA
April 24, 2018: NAACP v. Trump
Court: District of Columbia District Court
Civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the American Federation of Teachers, challenged the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind DACA on both procedural and constitutional grounds, including violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found the Department’s recission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful and must be set aside.
November 8, 2018: Regents of the University of California v.U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
States, universities, cities, unions, and individuals challenged the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind DACA. They argued the recission violated the Administrative Procedure Act, due process, and equal protection. The court found the DACA rescission likely violated equal protection and affirmed the lower court’s decision to issue an injunction allowing DACA renewals to continue.
May 17, 2019: Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Court: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
DACA recipients challenged the Trump administration’s 2017 attempt to rescind DACA, arguing that the recission violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment, and common law. The court found DACA’s recission was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unlawful.
June 18, 2020: U.S. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
A consolidation of three cases that each challenged the end of DACA: Regents, Batalla Vidal, and NAACP. The Court found the recission of the DACA program was arbitrary and capricious and that DHS failed to provide sufficient reasoned analysis and to consider the reliance interests of DACA recipients in its reasoning and procedure for ending DACA. The court vacated the recission of DACA allowing initial and renewal DACA requests to be processed and adjudicated.
December 4, 2020: Batalla Vidal v. Wolf
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
The court certified the requested Batalla class and vacated the Wolf Memo curbing DACA, which resulted in the 2012 DACA policy going back into effect for the first time in almost three years. Tens of thousands of initial DACA requests were approved between December 2020 and July 2021 (when DACA was partially enjoined by the District Court in Southern Texas).
July 16, 2021: Texas v. U.S.
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Texas and several other states challenged DACA on Administrative Procedure Act and other grounds. The court found that DACA violated both procedural and substantive aspects of the A and vacated the 2012 DACA memo that created the program. The court allowed DACA renewals to continue, but enjoined DHS from approving any initial DACA requests.
October 5, 2022: Texas v. U.S
Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
States had challenged the legality of DACA, arguing the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that the program itself was unlawful. The Fifth Circuit found that Biden administration’s issuance of a final DACA rule in August 2022 did not make this case moot. Reviewing 2012 DACA, the Fifth Circuit found that DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had exceeded its authority in enacting DACA. The court allowed for DACA renewals to continue but barred initial DACA requests from being adjudicated and sent the case back to the Southern District of Texas court to review the August 2022 DACA rule.
September 13, 2023: Texas v. U.S.
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
The Southern District of Texas found that there were no material differences between the original 2012 DACA program and the 2022 final DACA rule and held that the final rule was also unlawful. The court extended the injunction of 2012 DACA to include the 2022 DACA rule, keeping in place the partial stay, allowing DACA renewals but barring initial requests from being adjudicated.
May 3, 2024: Affordable Care Act Expansion for DACA recipients
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule to make DACA recipients eligible to purchase health coverage and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The rule is intended to take effect on November 1, 2024 (the start of open enrollment under the ACA).
August 30, 2024: Kansas v. U.S.
Court: District Court of North Dakota
Kansas and several other states filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the legality of the ACA DACA rule and asking the court to vacate and block the rule. On September 20, 2024, NILC and pro bono counsel Gibson Dunn LLP moved to intervene on behalf of CASA and three individual intervenors with DACA who are planning to enroll in qualified ACA health insurance plans under the rule. CASA and individual Defendant Intervenors also filed a motion to dismiss North Dakota as a Plaintiff and transfer the case to U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, D.C. Oral Argument on the Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be held on October 15, 2024, at the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
October 10, 2024 – Texas v. U.S.
Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holds oral arguments in Texas v. U.S., reviewing the district court’s decision finding the 2022 DACA rule unlawful. Arguments focus on the suing states’ standing, the severability of the rule, and the proper scope of remedy.
January 17, 2025 – Texas v. U.S.
Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision modifying the injunction but keeping the stay pending appeal which would mean that renewals can continue for existing DACA recipients. The 5th Circuit limited its decision to Texas, and sent the case back to the district court with an instruction to sever the forbearance from deportation provision from the work authorization, meaning that no more work permits would be granted (only protection from deportation). The timing for this to go into effect is unclear. Status quo remains the same (people everywhere can continue to renew if eligible).