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

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (February 15, 2018)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthmbdui0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ *Research Service Informing the leg Isative debate since 1914 District Court Enjoins DACA Phase-Out: Explanation and Takeaways Hillel R. Smith, Coordinator Legislative Attorney Ben Harrington, Coordinator Legislative Attorney February 15, 2018 UPDATE: On February 13, 2018, following publication of this Sidebar the US. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in considering a separate lawsuit challenging the planned rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, issued a nationwide preliminay injunction limiting the DACA phase-out to aliens who have not yet obtained DACA benefits. The district court s injunction, which mirrors the nationwide injunction issued by the US. District Court for the Northern District of California, requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to maintain the DACA program on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the issuance of the memorandum in September 2017 to phase out DACA, but the injunction only requires the continuation ofDACA with respect to aliens who had previously obtained relief through the initiative. In issuing the injunction, the New York federal district court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that DHS s decision to end DACA was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Specifically, the court concluded that (1) the agency s decision was based on an erroneous legal premise that DACA is unlawful and unconstitutional; (2) the agency s decision was based on a 'factually erroneous premise that courts have ruled that DACA is unconstitutional, because the district court characterized the decision as inaccurately premised on two reviewing courts 'conclusion that a separate deferred action initiative concerning unlawfully present parents of US. citizens and lawful permanent residents was unlawful; and (3) the agency s stated rationale for ending DACA conflicted with its decision to honor and renew DACA benefits for current relief recipients during the six-month wind-down period. Further, the court determined that DHS's concerns about the potential litigation risk associated with DACA were merely Congressional Research Service 7-5700 CRS Legal Sidebar www.crs.gov LSB10057 Prepared for Members and Committees of Conaress