DACA litigation and administrative discretion
⚖️ I. Background: What is DACA and Administrative Discretion?
1. DACA Overview
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is a policy started by the Obama administration in 2012.
It provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children.
DACA is not a law passed by Congress; it’s an exercise of prosecutorial and administrative discretion by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
2. Administrative Discretion
Agencies have discretion to decide how to enforce immigration laws, including whom to prioritize for deportation.
Courts generally defer to agencies on discretionary decisions unless they violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or constitutional provisions.
The APA requires agency actions to not be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
🧑⚖️ II. Important Cases on DACA Litigation & Administrative Discretion
1. United States v. Texas (2016)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court (4-4 split)
Facts: Texas and other states challenged the Obama administration’s attempt to expand DACA and create DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans).
Issue: Whether the administration exceeded its authority by expanding deferred action protections without congressional approval.
Ruling: The Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving the lower court’s injunction in place, blocking DAPA and expanded DACA.
Impact:
Highlighted limits on executive discretion in immigration.
Demonstrated states can challenge administrative immigration policies.
Left basic DACA intact, but expansion blocked.
2. Regents of the University of California v. DHS (2020)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The Trump administration attempted to rescind DACA. DACA recipients and institutions sued to block the rescission.
Issue: Was the rescission of DACA lawful under the APA?
Ruling: The Court held the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because DHS failed to consider important factors, such as reliance interests of recipients.
Impact:
Reinforced that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for rescinding policies.
Established that administrative discretion is not unlimited and subject to APA review.
Allowed DACA to remain in effect.
3. NAACP v. Trump (2018)
Court: U.S. District Court, Maryland
Facts: States and civil rights groups challenged the Trump administration’s announcement to end DACA.
Issue: Whether DHS’s decision to end DACA violated the APA and constitutional protections.
Ruling: The court preliminarily enjoined the rescission, citing failure to adequately consider the impacts on DACA recipients.
Impact:
Applied APA’s requirement for reasoned decision-making.
Recognized that administrative discretion requires consideration of reliance and fairness.
4. Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf (2018)
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern California
Facts: DACA recipients challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA.
Issue: Whether the termination was lawful under APA and Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Ruling: The court blocked DACA’s termination on APA grounds—finding the administration failed to justify the decision adequately.
Impact:
Demonstrated courts’ willingness to check executive discretion.
Reinforced the need for meaningful explanation before policy reversals.
5. Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen (2018)
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Facts: Similar to Innovation Law Lab, DACA recipients challenged termination.
Issue: Validity of DHS’s decision to end DACA.
Ruling: Injunction granted, citing the administration’s failure to follow APA procedural requirements.
Impact:
Further solidified APA protections against arbitrary agency actions.
Showed consistency in judicial skepticism of DACA rescission without justification.
6. Casa de Maryland v. Wolf (2019)
Court: U.S. District Court, Maryland
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged DHS for not renewing DACA applications timely, causing delays and harms.
Issue: Whether delays in processing DACA renewal applications violated APA.
Ruling: The court ordered DHS to expedite renewals, emphasizing agency’s duty to process applications fairly.
Impact:
Affirmed administrative obligations beyond mere policy decisions.
Highlighted how discretion includes timeliness and fairness in implementation.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Court | Issue | Ruling | Administrative Discretion Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Texas (2016) | Supreme Court (split) | Limits on immigration executive actions | Blocked DACA expansion/DAPA | Executive discretion limited by law |
| Regents v. DHS (2020) | Supreme Court | Rescission of DACA | Rescission arbitrary and capricious | Agency must consider reliance interests |
| NAACP v. Trump (2018) | District Court (MD) | Ending DACA | Preliminary injunction granted | APA requires reasoned decision-making |
| Innovation Law Lab (2018) | District Court (CA) | Ending DACA | Injunction granted | Agency must justify policy changes |
| Batalla Vidal (2018) | District Court (NY) | DACA termination | Injunction granted | Procedural fairness required |
| Casa de Maryland (2019) | District Court (MD) | Renewal delays | Ordered expedited processing | Discretion includes timely implementation |
🔍 Analysis: Administrative Discretion in DACA Context
The DACA program itself is discretionary, based on the executive branch’s enforcement priorities.
Courts do not second-guess the initial discretion to create or maintain DACA but review how agencies act under the APA.
Agencies must provide adequate explanations, especially when reversing policies, showing that discretion is not unfettered.
Courts protect reliance interests—people who have built lives based on the program.
Procedural fairness (such as timely renewals) is also part of agency discretion.
🧾 Conclusion
DACA litigation illustrates the tension between executive branch discretion in immigration enforcement and judicial oversight under the APA. While the government has broad discretion in setting enforcement priorities, courts have consistently held that administrative decisions must be reasoned, consider reliance interests, and comply with procedural rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments