About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

1 (January 11, 2018)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthmbdqa0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 









   Congressional                                                        ______
   ~ Research Service

   ~ nforming the Iegiative debate since 19!4





District Court Enjoins DACA Phase-Out:

Explanation and Takeaways



Michael John Garcia
Acting Section Research Manager

January 11, 2018


Since the Trump Administration announced in September 2017 a phase-out of the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, a number of lawsuits have been brought challenging the action as
unconstitutional or contrary to federal laws governing agency rulemaking procedures. The Obama
Administration implemented DACA in 2012 to provide work authorization and administrative relief from
immigration enforcement action to certain unlawfully present aliens who entered the United States as
children. The Trump Administration, however, has taken the position that the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) does not authorize DACA and the initiative is not a valid exercise of the Executive's
independent constitutional authority. On January 9, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in the case of Regents of University of California
v. US. Department of Homeland Security limiting the DACA phase-out to aliens not yet enrolled in
DACA. The decision, which seems likely to be appealed by the Trump Administration, may have
immediate consequences for the disposition of current DACA enrollees and, potentially, broader
consequences regarding the permissibility of the large-scale use of deferred action with respect to
unlawfully present aliens.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may set aside executive actions that are arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Having determined that the
Administration's decision to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review, the district court reasoned
the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claim. The district court concluded that the Trump
Administration's proffered initial reason for ending DACA was not based on a change in policy
preference but instead was grounded upon what the court viewed as a mistaken legal conclusion: the
Administration believed that DACA could not be supported by the Executive's constitutional and existing
statutory powers, but the district court concluded otherwise.

                                                                Congressional Research Service
                                                                                      7-5700
CRS Legal Sidebar                                                               www.crs.gov
                                                                                    LSB10057
Prepared for Members and


Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most