The White House’s 2014 executive actions on immigration have been cause for controversy from the moment President Obama announced them almost two years ago. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program prompted a lawsuit by 26 state governments. A U.S. district judge in Texas issued an injunction against the program, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) halted the implementation of DAPA nationwide in response. A new lawsuit filed in New York, however, challenges this action by DHS. Batalla Vidal v. Baran et al., No. 1:16-cv-04756, am. complaint (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 29, 2016). The plaintiff claims that the Texas court that granted the injunction lacked the authority to bind the DHS in New York.
The White House announced DAPA on November 20, 2014. The program would be similar to the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and it would cover qualifying undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The program represents an agreement by the federal government not to pursue (to “defer”) immigration enforcement action against a person for a defined period of time. To be eligible, an individual must show that they are a parent of a citizen or permanent resident, that they have been continuously present in the U.S. since 2010, and that they are not an “enforcement priority” under the administration’s immigration enforcement criteria. DAPA recipients may also be eligible for work authorization.
The Texas court granted the temporary injunction in February 2015. Texas, et al., v. United States, 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015). The injunction covered DAPA and expansions to DACA included in the 2014 executive actions, but it did not affect the existing DACA program. The Fifth Circuit denied a request to stay the injunction in May 2015, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015), and affirmed it that November, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). When the case went to the Supreme Court, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia meant that only eight justices were available to hear the case, and they split 4-4. 579 U.S. ___ (2016). The Fifth Circuit’s ruling was therefore allowed to stand, but with no adjudication on a national level.