Challenging the Unlawful Rescission of DACA and Protecting the Livelihoods of Childhood Arrivals

When the Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, many undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. as children became eligible for protection against deportation and work authorizations. As part of its outreach to boost participation in the program as a result of the heightened skepticism from many undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration made key promises, including that any information provided through the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement and that they would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits so long as they remained eligible. With this promise, approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants applied for and were granted DACA status – a status that allowed them to access education, bank accounts, start businesses, purchase homes, and conduct other aspects of daily life. The impact of DACA was life-changing for recipients. Not only did it grant them protection from deportation, it gave them hope and the means to pursue the American Dream and step into their full potential.

However, in 2017, the Trump administration turned its back on its promise to DACA recipients by terminating the program and reversing course on its exemption of sharing sensitive information provided during the DACA application process for the purposes of immigration enforcement. As a result, Public Counsel and its partners filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of CA on behalf of six DACA recipients to challenge the decision to rescind the program. Not only would ending the program put DACA recipients at risk of deportation, but it would also directly impact the livelihoods they’d built up through years of hard work and perseverance as a result.

In January 2018, the Northern District Court Judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction directing the DACA program remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the program. The government appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. However, in November 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, concluding that the decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA and that the nationwide preliminary injunction was appropriate, thus allowing DACA renewals to continue.

The government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which the Court granted in June 2019, consolidating three challenges to the DACA rescission program that were pending nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 12. On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a huge victory for DACA recipients nationwide, affirming that the Trump administration’s rescission of the DACA program was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious. Despite this victory, the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the Court’s decision by preventing new applicants from securing DACA status and further limiting the program by requiring annual renewals, rather than the two years provided by the original terms of the program and effectively ending advanced parole for DACA recipients.

In November 2020, Public Counsel along with co-counsel filed an amended complaint to add seven plaintiffs. In a separate challenge to DACA in NY, the U.S. District Court judge directed the government to restore DACA fully to the days before the Trump administration tried to end it. On the first day of the Biden Administration on January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order preserving and fortifying the DACA program.

The parties sought to negotiate a settlement of the litigation but were unable to do so during the Biden Administration. There has been no resumption of negotiations under the current Administration. Counsel for the Garcia plaintiffs as well as other plaintiffs have regularly filed status reports with the district court. It is the intent of all plaintiffs to keep open the litigation in case the Trump Administration takes any action to rescind or modify the program or otherwise undertakes actions to change the status of DACA recipients.