Back to Top skip to main content
Green and Spiegel - An Immigration Law Firm - United States
Jun 18, 2020

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds DACA Program

Catriona M. Davenport and Stephen Antwine

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was deemed invalid because the Trump administration made the change without compliance with proper procedural compliance.

This decision will benefit the more than 652,800 people currently availing of the program and marks a victory for DACA advocates. However, the Supreme Court made clear that they were not deciding on the political issues or “whether DACA or its recission are sound policies”. The case will now be remanded to the Department of Homeland Security so that they may consider the issue again.

DACA was enacted in 2012 by President Obama to allow young people raised in the United States without valid immigration status to remain and work in the U.S. for renewable periods of two years. Under the Trump administration, the program was rescinded in September 2017 and has been the subject of several court cases since its recission before making its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the program with Chief Justice Roberts delivering the decision of the majority. The focus of the decision was built around the tension between the program as a deferred enforcement initiative and elements of the program conferring benefits, such as Social Security and work authorization.

The Court reasoned that “DACA was not just a deferred enforcement program as argued by the government, rather, it is a program to solicit applicants who met the criteria for approval” and thus bestowing additional benefits.  By granting DACA, recipients “may request work authorization and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare.” As such, approval of DACA effectively results in applicants’ “adjudications” according to the Court, making “access to these types of benefits …an interest ‘courts often are called upon to protect.’”

Perhaps most importantly, the Court found that the “foundational principle of administrative law” allows judicial review of the “grounds that the agency invoked when it took action.” The Supreme Court focused much of its attention on the fact that the Department of Homeland Security “failed to consider…important aspects of the program before it.”  

The court rejected the arguments of the Department of Homeland Security in attempting to terminate the program, namely that the program was illegal and its termination was required to “maintain public confidence in the rule of law.” Moreover, the Court rejected additional post hoc rationalizations of DHS of a preference for legislative action on the issue and encouraging a “robust” enforcement message to other immigrants. 

Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the conferral of benefits and forbearance of removal were coupled within the DACA program. Addressing these two separate interests and balancing policy initiatives was a determination within the realm of DHS and one that it could have made with reasoned policy.  However, he wrote, “Making that difficult decision was the agency’s job, but the agency failed to do it.” 

As such, the Supreme Court found the process for recission of the program illegal and the ruling today allows DACA to remain as law. 

It remains unclear what effect this decision will have on those who have been unable to apply for DACA since the decision to rescind the program, or what the future of the program will be. Although the issue will likely be at the center of upcoming presidential debates, it is expected that the future of the program will be closely tied to the results of the election.

If you have any questions regarding this decision and if or how it would affect your case, please contact Green & Spiegel at (215) 395-8959 or info@gands-us.com.

Related Team

Related Services:

Recent Blogs

Sep 18, 2020

Update on Upcoming USCIS Fee Changes

• Fee increases and corresponding versions of new forms will apply to filings postmarked 10/02/2020 or later. • Fee increases by a weighted average of 20%, $10.00 discount available to online filings. • Significant increases for naturalization and overall cost of adjustment of status. • Asylum Applications will now carry $50.00 fee. • Premium Processing will remain the same fee but with 15-business-day deadline. • Most separate biometric fees eliminated and built-in to overall filing fee. • Several fee waivers no longer available. Learn more in this blog.

Sep 17, 2020

Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can End Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Trump can put an end to Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which would deny more than 300,000 individuals the ability to remain in the United States legally. Learn more in this blog.

Aug 26, 2020

President Trump’s RNC Naturalization Ceremony Was Misleading

Last night, The Republican National Convention broadcast featured a prerecorded segment in which President Trump hosted a naturalization ceremony for five candidates at the White House. The president attempted to soften his image of being harsh on immigration by highlighting the achievements of these five diverse individuals and emphasizing the incredible honor of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States. Learn more in this blog.