Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Republican Party leaders denounced the DACA program as an abuse of executive power.[43]

Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224–201 to defund DACA in June 2013.[44] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is ... the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect."[45]

To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:

• Have unlawful presence in United States after entering the country before their 16th birthday
• Have lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007
• Were under age 31 on as of June 15, 2012 (born on June 16, 1981, or after)
• Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS
• Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012
• Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school
• Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

To show proof of qualification (verify these requirements), applicants must submit three forms; I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and I-765WS Worksheet, as well as supporting documentation.[48]

In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).[49][48]

A Form I-512L issued by USCIS in 2014, permitting a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer to allow the named DACA recipient to enter the United States under the parole authority in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Until September 5, 2017, DACA recipients who wished to travel outside the United States could apply to do so by submitting a request for Advance Parole and paying an additional fee.

If approved, the DACA recipient could travel outside the United States and re-enter the United States with a grant of parole, making that individual potentially eligible for adjustment of status to Lawful Permanent Resident after marrying a United States citizen.[50]

The application submitted to request Advance Parole was Form I-131 Application Type D*, with a fee of $575.[51]

Advance Parole could be requested for travel abroad for:

• Educational purposes, such as studying abroad;
• Employment purposes, such as overseas positions, interviews, training, or meetings with clients; or
• Humanitarian purposes, such as travel for medical reasons, attend funeral services for a family member, or visit a sick relative.

Travel for leisure is not a valid purpose.[51]

A stamp applied to the Mexican passport of a DACA recipient entering the United States with Advance Parole at John F. Kennedy International Airport in January 2017, with handwritten annotations indicating the passport holder was paroled into the United States by a Customs and Border Protection officer.

As of September 2017, USCIS ceased approving applications for an advance parole document relating to DACA.[52] As of July 2022, however, advance parole for DACA recipients was reinstated.

USCIS released the process for DACA renewals in June 2014 and directed applicants to file their documents during a 30-day window starting 150 days before the expiration of their previous DACA status. Renewing requires an additional $495 fee.[53]

As of June 2016, there had been 606,264 renewal cases, with 526,288 approved, 4,703 denied and 75,205 renewals pending.[33]

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include undocumented immigrants who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000;[36] in December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).[37][38][39] In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded.[40][41] After progressing through the court system, the appeals court ruled 2–1 in favor of enjoining the DACA expansion. When the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely death left an 8 justice court, which then ruled equally divided (4–4) for and against the injunction. Procedural rules of the Court in the case of a tie would mean that no opinion would be written, no precedent would be set by the Supreme Court in the case, and that the appellate court's ruling would stand.[42]

There are now calls to expand DACA to include children of adults who entered the USA legally. In these cases, their children are only legal in the US as long as they are minors. When the children become 21 years old, they no longer have a legal visa status in the USA. Some have coined the label "documented dreamers" to describe this category of young people who entered the country with proper documentation.[54] Another category of young people often overlooked in the discussion of DACA is those who have arrived in the USA illegally since 2010, the cutoff for the present DACA policy.

According to FactCheck.org, "there is no evidence that DACA holders are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens." Factcheck.Org noted that "numerous studies have found that immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants."[17]

Fact-checkers note that, on a large scale or in the long run, there is no reason to believe that DACA recipients have a major deleterious effect on American workers' employment chances; to the contrary, some economists say that DACA benefits the overall U.S. economy.[18][56][55][19][57] Economists have warned that ending DACA could adversely affect the U.S. economy, and that "most economists see immigration generally as an economic boon."[55][57] Almost all economists reject Jeff Sessions' claim that DACA "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."[55] Sessions' claim is rooted in what economists call the "lump of labor fallacy" (i.e., the idea that there is a limit to amount of work force available in any economy).[18][58]

A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA increased labor force participation and decreased the unemployment rate for DACA-eligible immigrants. DACA also increased the income of undocumented immigrants in the bottom of the income distribution.[10] The study estimates that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.[10] According to University of California, Davis economist Giovanni Peri, DACA consequently "increases consumption and overall demand for U.S. services, products, and jobs where the DACA recipients live and spend. Economists have shown that highly skilled workers increase local productivity and create opportunities for the other workers too".[59] A 2016 study in Economics Letters found that DACA-eligible households were 38% less likely than non-eligible unauthorized immigrant households to live in poverty.[16] Furthermore, DACA-eligible workers tend to have higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs than undocumented immigrants.[60]

According to one survey, 91 percent of DACA registrants are employed, and 5 percent have launched their own businesses, compared to 3.1 percent of all Americans.[61] According to Giovanni Peri, ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that, as of 2017, the U.S. economy is close to full employment.[18][62] Ike Brannon and Logan Albright of the CATO Institute wrote in 2017 that ending DACA would have an adverse economic and fiscal impact, estimating that the cost of immediately eliminating DACA and deporting those who received deferred action would be $283 billion over a decade (representing an economic loss of $215 billion, a fiscal loss of $60 billion (from lower net tax revenue), and $7.5 billion in deportation costs).[63] Brannon and Albright wrote that their projections were "a conservative estimate due to the fact that many DACA immigrants are young and still acquiring education credentials that will boost wages later."[63] The Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade.[55] Peri argues that DACA recipients likely have a significant net positive fiscal impact given that DACA-eligible individuals have similar characteristics as second-generation immigrants, and that research shows that second-generation immigrants have a net positive fiscal impact of $173,000 to $259,000 per immigrant.[59] Peri also notes that the U.S. public school system has already invested in educating these individuals, and they are at the point at which they can start contributing to the U.S. economy and public coffers; deporting them or increasing the likelihood that they will be deported is economically counterproductive.[59] A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress estimated that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce U.S. GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years.[64][65] This would mean an average reduction in GDP of $43.3 billion per year from 2017 to 2027, or 0.2% of the 2018 U.S. GDP of $20 trillion.

According to Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas economist Pia Orrenius, due to their risk of deportation, it is likely that previously DACA-protected individuals would slip into the shadow economy or take low-profile jobs that pay less.[57]

A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA likely led to greater productivity by increasing the college attendance and employment of DACA-eligible individuals.[66]

Research has shown mixed findings for DACA on education outcomes. A 2016 study in the Journal of Public Economics found that DACA had no significant effect on the likelihood of attending school.[10] The study only found "suggestive evidence that DACA pushed over 25,000 DACA-eligible individuals into obtaining their GED certificate in order to be eligible for DACA."[10] However, research by Roberto G. Gonzales, professor of education at Harvard University, showed that DACA led to increased educational attainment.[67] A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that DACA led to greater high school attainment and college attendance for DACA-eligible individuals.[66]

A 2016 study in the Journal of Population Economics found that DACA "reduced the probability of school enrollment of eligible higher-educated individuals, as well as some evidence that it increased the employment likelihood of men, in particular. Together, these findings suggest that a lack of authorization may lead individuals to enroll in school when working is not a viable option."[68]

The effects of the rescinding and subsequent reimplementation of DACA has affected college students dramatically. The primary effects are psychological and educational in nature. The first way it does so is the general stress that comes with having an uncertain legal status: 70.9% of DACA recipients strongly agreed with the statement "they worry about the future of the program".[69] Many recipients have spoken about how their DACA status gives them anxiety because of fear for the unknown.[69] This can then affect their education because individuals take that uncertainty and apply it to how much effort they should be putting into their schoolwork. The possible threat of deportation at any moment causes many DACA students reduce the amount of time they spend doing coursework, and some even drop out in favor of earning money at a job. A 2018 study showed the compound effect of being at a four-year university vs. a community college with 7.3% increase in dropout rates.[70] Not only does this status make individuals less likely to finish their undergraduate degree, but it can also stop students from pursuing a graduate degree, especially in terms of funding.[71]

The psychological effects of this status also becomes a barrier for DACA students in their college experience, largely because of the uncertainty that the status carries. Many reported high rates of extreme stress and anxiety as compared to their documented counterparts.[69] Also, the internalizing of the label "illegal" made it so that these individuals saw themselves as less human. In certain cases this meant more instances of self-harm and even suicide in some cases.[72]

A 2017 study published in the journal Science found that DACA led to improved mental health outcomes for the children of DACA-eligible mothers.[13] A 2017 Lancet Public Health study found that DACA-eligible individuals had better mental health outcomes as a result of their DACA eligibility.[14] A cross-sectional study published in 2018 in the journal Social Science & Medicine determined that receiving deferred action improved the psychological well-being of DACA recipient, as measured by declines in levels of distress, negative emotions, and fear of deportation.[15] A study published in 2017 in the journal Social Problems reported findings from a series of in-depth interviews with 53 undocumented young adults in Florida (of whom 42 obtained DACA), who had been brought to the United States at an average age of eight. The study found that undocumented youth in the United States suffered from a lack of ontological security, and that negative emotions (such as frustration) were more pronounced among youth who do not have DACA status than among those who did receive DACA status. The interviews demonstrated that DACA recipients received relief from immediate fear of deportation, but continued to suffer "anxiety and insecurity ... because they have parents and other kin who are still subject to deportation."[73] The study authors concluded that "Programs such as DACA are important, but only long-term immigration reform that allows full incorporation and citizenship and protects all members of a family will enable young adults to find their place in this country and come to develop trust in U.S. social institutions and their representatives."[73]

FiveThirtyEight, summarizing the findings of past research, wrote that "the threat of deportation alone would likely have a negative impact on families. Immigration-related stress and anxiety have been shown to have negative health effects... Generally, researchers believe the stress that stems from the fear of having a parent deported has far-reaching, negative effects on the health of children."[74] In an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine, Atheendar S. Venkataramani, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and Alexander C. Tsai, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, wrote, "The evidence clearly indicates that rescinding DACA will have profound adverse population-level effects on mental health... DACA was never intended to be a public health program, but its population-level consequences for mental health have been significant and rival those of any large-scale health or social policies in recent history. Rescinding DACA therefore represents a threat to public mental health."[75] A study that was published 2019 showed an improvement of self-reported health for Latina/o DACA-eligible immigrants and their children from 2012 to 2015 and a worsening after 2015.[76]

21 percent of DACA-protected immigrants work in education and health services.[57] The American Medical Association has estimated that under DACA or similar legislation, 5,400 additional physicians would work in the United States in coming decades, alleviating a projected shortage of primary care physicians.[57]

A 2016 study published in the journal International Migration found that DACA did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America.[77] A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessing the reasons behind the surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America did not mention DACA, and cited crime and lack of economic opportunity as the main reasons behind the surge.[56]

Arizona became the first state to oppose President Obama's order for DACA when Governor Jan Brewer issued an order blocking those with deferred status from receiving any state benefits.[100] This caused controversy,[101] as eligible and approved applicants would still be unable to obtain a driver's license.[102] In May 2013, a federal district court held that this policy was likely unconstitutional. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against Brewer's ban, and in November 2014 held this ban was in violation of the law.[103]

To assist those eligible under the program,[104] the state of California has agreed to support those who receive a DACA grant by allowing access to a state driver's license,[105] provided that such individuals participate in specific state guidelines (such as paying income taxes). The state of California also allows DACA holding individuals to qualify for Medi-Cal.[106]

Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel stated that he wants to make Chicago the "most immigrant-friendly city in the country".[107] In addition to offering in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, he has also made plans for a city ordinance that would prevent undocumented immigrants with no criminal background from being turned over to immigration enforcement agencies.[107]

In 2012, the then-director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, Paul Trombino III (now nominee for Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration), announced a policy to deny driver's licenses to Iowa residents who were part of the DACA program. The policy was reversed several weeks later.[108][109]

In 2016, Mayor of Baltimore (2010-2016) Stephanie Rawlings-Blake stated that Baltimore police would not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.[110]

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.[111]

In October 2012, the Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, announced that Michigan would not issue driver's licenses or state identification of any kind to beneficiaries of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.[112] In making this decision, it was clear that the Secretary of State erroneously conflated the notion of "lawful presence," which is required under Michigan Law to issue a driver's license, and "lawful status," a different legal concept entirely.[113] USCIS has made it clear that DACA beneficiaries do not possess legal status, but does not state that DACA beneficiaries are unlawfully present; in fact, it states that DACA beneficiaries will not accrue unlawful presence time here while they are in this deferred action status.[114] The Secretary of State relied upon USCIS' own explanation, which discusses legal status, not lawful presence.[114] In response to this policy, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging that the policy violated both Michigan law and the U.S. Constitution.[115] On January 18, 2013, USCIS updated their "Frequently Asked Questions" page about DACA, clarifying, among other things, that DACA beneficiaries are, in fact, lawfully present in the United States.[116] On February 1, 2013, Johnson reversed her policy and began issuing driver's licenses to DACA beneficiaries on February 19, 2013.[117]

Governor Dave Heineman opposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and in 2012 directed the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles to not issue driver's licenses to people who received deferred action under DACA. Heineman said that providing any benefit, including a driver's license, to an illegal immigrant would be a violation of Nebraska state law.[118]

In 2015, however, the Nebraska Legislature determined that Section 202(c)(B)(viii) of the REAL ID Act of 2015 required states to allow people to present documentation of deferred-action status when registering for a driver's license, and the Nebraska Legislature voted to change state law to allow qualified individuals with DACA to receive licenses by using documentation of their status of deferred action.[118][119][120] Governor Pete Ricketts vetoed the bill; the legislature voted 34–10 to override the veto.[118] Nebraska became the last of the 50 states to allow deferred-action recipients to obtain licenses.[118]

North Carolina briefly suspended giving driver's licenses to DACA grantees while awaiting the state attorney general's opinion. The attorney general decided that even without formal immigration status, DACA grantees were to be granted legal presence. Subsequently, the state once again continued to give driver's licenses and allowed DACA grantees to become legal residents of North Carolina.[121]

Although in-state tuition was still offered, Governor Rick Perry announced his opposition to DACA by distributing a letter to all state agencies, meant "to ensure that all Texas agencies understand that Secretary Napolitano's guidelines confer absolutely no legal status whatsoever to any illegal immigrant who qualifies for the federal 'deferred action' designation."[122]

In April 2014, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring sent a letter to the director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), the presidents of Virginia public colleges and universities, and the chancellor of the Virginia Community College System in response to inquiries from public institutions of higher education on whether DACA students were eligible for in-state tuition. The attorney general advised that under Virginia law, DACA students who met Virginia's domicile requirements were eligible for in-state tuition.[123][124]

Protesters outside Trump Tower in New York City, September 5, 2017

Protesters in San Francisco, September 5, 2017

According to The New York Times, "Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the repeal as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy."[133] Former President Obama condemned the repeal as "cruel" and wrote:[138]

They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they're undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver's license ... Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us ... Kicking them out won't lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone's taxes, or raise anybody's wages.

The reaction was mixed among Republicans.[139] Several senior Republicans praised Trump's action, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.[140] Ryan said that Mr. Trump, "was right in his decision" to give Congress the time to find a compromise that could protect the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, also known as DACA.[141] Other Republicans, including Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, condemned the Trump Administration's choice to rescind the executive order.[140] In a released statement Senator McCain said:[142]

I strongly believe that children who were illegally brought into this country through no fault of their own should not be forced to return to a country they do not know. The 800,000 innocent young people granted deferred action under DACA over the last several years are pursuing degrees, starting careers, and contributing to our communities in important ways. While I disagreed with President Obama's unilateral action on this issue, I believe that rescinding DACA at this time is an unacceptable reversal of the promises and opportunities that have been conferred to these individuals.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce condemned the repeal.[143] A number of religious organizations condemned the repeal, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops describing it as "reprehensible". The Catholic University of Notre Dame also urged the president to not rescind DACA and announced it would stand by those affected.[144] The United Methodist Church said it was "not only unconscionable, but contrary to moral work and witness," and the Evangelical Lutheran Church called on its members to "pray today for those that will suffer undue repercussions due to the end of this program."[145] Asked about Trump's decision to rescind DACA, Pope Francis said if Trump is truly pro-life, "he will understand that the family is the cradle of life and that it must be defended as a unit."[146] Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, endorsed Trump's repeal.[145]

The September 2017 announcement sparked protests in many cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Los Angeles. At a September 5 protest in New York outside of Trump Tower, more than 30 protesters were arrested.[147] On September 19, more protesters were arrested outside Trump Tower, including Democratic congressmen Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, Luis Gutiérrez of Illinois, and Adriano Espaillat of New York.[148]

In announcing the rescission, the Trump Administration delayed implementation for six months to allow Congress to pass the DREAM Act or otherwise settle the status of Dreamers legislatively.[149][150][136] Multiple proposals were introduced in Congress but none passed. Proposals included:

• DREAM Act: Proposed by Sens. Graham and Durbin, the DREAM Act offers protections to illegal immigrants similar to DACA, as well as offering a path to citizenship.[151]
• Recognizing America's Children Act: Proposed by Rep. Curbelo, RAC offers a pathway to legalization through education, military service, or work authorization. After 10 years in this program, immigrants could apply for citizenship.[152]
• The American Hope Act: Proposed by Rep. Gutiérrez, this act offers an expedited path to citizenship that is attainable in eight years, but the immigrant must have entered the US before the age of eighteen.[153]
• BRIDGE Act: Proposed by Rep. Coffman, this bill extends the DACA program by three years, allowing more time to discuss comprehensive immigration reform.[154]
• Broader Options for Americans Act: This bill is used for immigration debate in the Senate.[155]

In February 2018 the Senate considered four bills to offer legal protection to people who came to the United States undocumented as children, but all four bills failed to pass.[156] On March 5, 2018, the rescission of DACA was supposed to become effective, leaving nearly 700,000 Dreamers eligible for deportation.[157] A Supreme Court ruling postponed the effective date until at least October 2018. In the interim, DACA recipients remain protected and can continue to renew their protected status.[158]

The rescission was challenged in court by different entities.[159] On September 6, 2017, fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit, titled New York v. Trump, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking to stop the rescission.[160] A few days later, the California attorney general, Xavier Becerra, filed a separate lawsuit, which was joined by the states of Maine, Minnesota, and Maryland. Becerra stated that, as a quarter of the people in the DACA program live in California, he thinks that "everyone recognizes the scope and breadth of the Trump decision to terminate DACA hits hardest here."[161] Not only have state governments filed suit, but also six DREAMERs have filed suit against Trump in San Francisco.[162] The University of California, which currently has approximately 4,000 undocumented students, has also filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security which was filed in the Northern District of California.[163] Janet Napolitano, president of the UC system, called the rescission of DACA, "unconstitutional, unjust, and unlawful". In a released statement Napolitano said:

I am deeply troubled by President Trump's decision to effectively end the DACA program and uproot the lives of an estimated 800,000 Dreamers across the nation. This backward-thinking, far-reaching move threatens to separate families and derail the futures of some of this country's brightest young minds, thousands of whom currently attend or have graduated from the University of California.[164]

On December 20, 2017, the Supreme Court remanded five DACA cases originally filed in the Northern District of California back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This action stops the district court's order to deliver documents to the plaintiffs.[165][166]

On January 9, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California temporarily blocked the rescission of the DACA program, ordering the government to renew DACA until further order of the court.[167][168] On January 13, 2018, the government stated that it would immediately resume approving DACA renewal applications.[169]

On February 13, 2018, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to fully restore the DACA program, including accepting brand new applicants as well as renewals.[170] Moreover, as a rationale for his ruling, Garaufis said that DACA was neither unconstitutional nor in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) nor the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).[171]

On February 26, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's request for it to review the lower court order that the administration must continue to accept DACA applications, so the Supreme Court will allow the Ninth Circuit to review the ruling.[172] The effect of this ruling was to delay implementation of the rescission until at least October 2018.[158]

On April 24, 2018, John D. Bates, a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Trump administration must resume accepting new applications for DACA but stayed his decision for 90 days to allow the Department of Homeland Security to explain why the program was being canceled.[173]

On August 3, 2018, Judge Bates said the Trump administration has failed to justify its proposal to end DACA; however, he stayed the ruling for 20 days to allow the Trump administration time to respond and appeal, if it chooses.[174][175]

On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Trump administration's decision to cancel the program.[176] On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to rescind DACA, saying that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason for its action as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."[5]

A separate case from the Fourth Circuit, Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.,[177] had also found the rescinding order arbitrary and capacious, and vacated it with orders to the lower United States District Court for the District of Maryland to review in May 2019. While there, the Supreme Court decision in Reagents was made. This led to District Court judge Paul W. Grimm to issue orders on July 17, 2020, that required DHS to restore the DACA program to its pre-rescission status, prior to September 2017, as the first court to make this requirement to the DHS following the SCOTUS decision. This order includes accepting new applicants as it has pre-September 2017, a step that DHS had not done since the rescinding order had been issued.[178]

On July 28, 2020, the Administration tried to get around the court rulings by having DHS issue a new memo to supersede previous DACA memos. New restrictions were put in place while the program was under review.[179] On November 14, a federal judge in New York City ruled that Chad Wolf has not been acting legally as acting head of Homeland Security so his attempts to suspend DACA protections are not valid.[180]

In June 2020, in Trump v. NAACP (DACA) the Supreme Court, ruling on the three injunctions blocking the rescission of the DACA, affirmed that the current reasoning given for the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, but did not rule on the merits of the DACA itself nor prevented the government from issuing a new rescission with better rationale.[5] NAACP President Derrick Johnson responded to the Supreme Court ruling in statement, saying "For far too long, the voices of the undocumented DACA recipients from the African Diaspora were silenced. There is no democratic dream for anyone if we don't allow our DREAMers to fully participate. This is a tremendous victory for America. Today's Supreme Court ruling in our favor is an incredible victory for justice, in the spirit of the NAACP's groundbreaking Supreme Court victory in Brown v Board of Education."[181]

GQ magazine reported that under NAACP President/CEO Derrick Johnson's leadership, "the nation's foremost and oldest civil rights organization landed a huge win in its Supreme Court case — Trump v. NAACP — that prevents Donald Trump's administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young immigrants." Johnson added, "It's a huge victory for us."[182]

On June 25, 2020, The Hill reported that the NAACP "successfully convinced the Supreme Court to rule against Trump. Its decision to defend DACA, [NAACP President Derrick Johnson] said, came in part because of the organization's traditional role of being a voice for Black communities, including immigrants. "DACA, oftentimes people seem to think of the Latinx community, when in fact it was far more reaching than that," Johnson said."[183]

The Washington Post reported that "Trump has often seemed ambivalent about DACA recipients — lauding them at some points and declaring they are "no angels" at others — but his administration has tried since September 2017 to end the program. It was implemented as an executive action by Obama in 2012 after a failed congressional attempt at comprehensive immigration reform."[184]

Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion that "the dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so..."[185]