On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration announces the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, which allows undocumented young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to temporarily remain in the U.S. and obtain work visas for two years.
Starting in 2017, Donald Trump’s administration attempts to end DACA. First, as a capitulation to Texas and other states opposed to it, and more recently by trying to limit the initiative. All along MALDEF has worked to protect DACA and the young immigrants who have applied for it.
Texas-led Multi-State Challenge:
State of Texas v. United States
June 2017 – Ongoing
June 29, 2017: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and nine states involved in a 2015 lawsuit that ended the DACA 2014 companion program Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) threaten to amend the lawsuit to challenge DACA if the initiative is not rescinded by September 5. The states’ request is at odds with previous assertions throughout the DAPA case that they were not challenging the original DACA initiative.
September 5, 2017: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA. The government sets an arbitrary one-month deadline to cease accepting new DACA applications and a six-month deadline – March 5, 2018 – to stop processing DACA renewal requests. The move sets off a series of lawsuits including Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security, Batalla Vidal v. United States, and State of New York v. Trump, that result in temporary injunctions that keep DACA alive.
May 1, 2018: Seven states, led by Texas, file a lawsuit, Texas v. United States, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging DACA. The case comes nearly six years after the initiative was put in place. The court transfers the case to U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.
May 8, 2018: MALDEF files a motion for intervention in Texas v. United States on behalf of 22 DACA recipients who say they would be inadequately represented by the Trump administration officials named as defendants in the litigation.
May 15, 2018: Judge Hanen grants MALDEF’s motion to intervene in Texas v. United States on behalf of 22 DACA recipients who argued that they would be inadequately represented by the Trump administration, given the administration’s public opposition to DACA.
June 25, 2018: A federal court in Brownsville, Texas grants a request filed by the State of New Jersey to intervene in Texas v. United States.
August 8, 2018: Judge Hanen holds a hearing in Texas v. United States to consider a request by Texas for a preliminary injunction to suspend renewals of DACA. MALDEF presents oral argument at the hearing on behalf of the 22 defendant-interveners defending the DACA initiative.
August 31, 2018: Judge Hanen denies Texas’ request for an injunction.
August 28, 2019: Two months after the United States Supreme Court agrees to hear three DACA rescission cases filed elsewhere, the State of New Jersey asks Judge Hanen to stay Texas v. United States pending a decision from the Supreme Court.
September 26, 2019: MALDEF files an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of its clients — nearly two dozen DACA recipients who intervened to defend the initiative against Texas and other states. The brief asks the Supreme Court to consider new evidence based on documents and depositions in the Texas lawsuit that demonstrate that DACA is discretionary, and which contradict the Trump administration’s stated reason for shutting down DACA. State of New Jersey joins the brief.
October 1, 2019: MALDEF files a motion asking Judge Hanen to vacate a summary judgment hearing and to postpone other deadlines in the case in order to allow time to brief additional evidence developed in discovery.
October 8, 2019: Judge Hanen hears oral argument on both New Jersey and MALDEF’s requests to the court.
November 22, 2019: Judge Hanen grants New Jersey’s motion to stay Texas v. United States until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling. He denies MALDEF’s motion requesting delay as moot because his stay order has already granted the requested relief.
November 6, 2020: Nearly five months after the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA, MALDEF and other interveners file a motion seeking summary judgment and opposing a multi-state request for summary judgment in Texas v. United States.
November 9, 2020: Judge Hanen sets a Dec. 22, 2020 hearing for oral argument in the requests for summary judgment in Texas v. United States.
Following is a timeline of other important litigation involving the Trump administration’s attempt to limit DACA:
January 9, 2018: Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issues a preliminary injunction in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security, ordering the federal government to continue to process DACA renewal requests pending resolution of legal challenges.
January 18, 2018: The Trump administration attempts to circumvent the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a direct appeal of Judge Alsup’s decision in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security.
February 13, 2018: Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issues a second nationwide injunction blocking the government’s attempt to end DACA, ruling that the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal the initiative was “arbitrary and capricious.” The ruling applies to two separate lawsuits, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and State of New York. v. Trump.
February 26, 2018: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a direct appeal of the January 9 district court ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security.
April 24, 2018: Judge John D. Bates of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rules that the Trump administration “failed adequately to explain its conclusion that (DACA) was unlawful” and orders the government to resume accepting new applications and to continue processing renewal requests. He gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 90 days to better explain the administration’s basis for rescinding DACA. The cases involved are NAACP v. Trump, and Trustees of Princeton v. United States of America.
May 15, 2018: A three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument on whether the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA was arbitrary. The appeal in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security follows a January ruling that resulted in a preliminary injunction.
August 3, 2018: Judge Bates of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia orders the Trump administration to revive DACA, including accepting new applications and renewals, saying the government’s decision to rescind the initiative was “arbitrary” and “capricious.” In April, Judge Bates gives the government 90 days to explain its legal rationale. Judge Bates delays his order until August 23. The cases involved are NAACP v. Trump, and Trustees of Princeton v. United States of America.
November 5, 2018: The Trump administration seeks review of DACA’s rescission before the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security marks the second time it has sought to bypass federal courts currently reviewing the administration’s attempt to repeal DACA.
November 8, 2018: A three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit upholds a district court’s preliminary injunction in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security.
June 28, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in three DACA rescission cases filed in U.S. district courts in California, the District of Columbia, and New York.
November 12, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in cases challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
June 18, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court rejects the Trump administration’s reasons for rescinding DACA, ruling 5-4 that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision leaves in place protections for more than 650,000 young immigrants.
August 28, 2020: A month after acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf issues a memo altering DACA to limit renewals and to reject new applications, Batalla Vidal v. Wolf challenges Wolf’s authority to issue the memorandum because he is improperly serving as acting secretary.
November 14, 2020: Judge Garaufis rules that Wolf did not have the authority to limit DACA because he was not legally serving as the acting Secretary of Homeland Security when he issued the memo.
December 5, 2020: Judge Garaufis instructs DHS to post a public notice by December 7 that states the department will accept and adjudicate DACA petitions from immigrants who qualify for the program but are not currently enrolled in it.
December 7, 2020: The Trump Administration announces it will begin accepting new applications for the first time in three years.
Texas v. United States
November 2014 through July 2017
November 20, 2014: The Obama administration moves to expand DACA and introduces Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), an initiative that would allow parents of U.S. citizen or permanent resident children to temporarily remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits.
December 3, 2014: Texas and 25 other states ask a federal court in Texas to block implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA. That lawsuit is known as Texas v. United States.
February 16, 2015: U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issues a preliminary injunction blocking DAPA and expanded DACA from being implemented. The U.S. Department of Justice appeals the decision.
April 17, 2015: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears oral argument in the appeal of the injunction.
May 26, 2015: A divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upholds the injunction blocking DAPA from being implemented.
November 9, 2015: A divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upholds the injunction blocking DAPA. At the same time, the Fifth Circuit overturns Judge Hanen’s decision to deny MALDEF’s request to intervene in Texas v. United States on behalf of three Texas mothers who sought to apply for DAPA.
January 19, 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court grants the Obama administration’s petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to consider whether the injunction against DAPA was properly granted.
April 18, 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in United States v. Texas. MALDEF, representing the lone interveners in the case, presents oral argument on behalf of the three mothers.
June 23, 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court announces without detail a 4-4 deadlock of the justices in United States v. Texas. As a result, Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction remains in place, blocking the implementation of DAPA.
June 15, 2017: The case returns to the trial court and, following many months of a stay to allow the new administration to decide its position, Texas refuses to agree to further delay. In response, the DHS officially rescinds DAPA, ending an initiative that existed on paper only.
July 28, 2017: MALDEF asks a federal court in Brownsville, Texas to dismiss Texas v. United States, the 2015 lawsuit filed by Texas against DAPA, because the case became moot once the initiative was rescinded.
September 5, 2017: Texas moves to dismiss of Texas v. United States, citing the rescission of DAPA.