This summary was created using AI to capture live transcripts of the October 10, 2024, Fifth Circuit hearing on DACA and summarize oral arguments. The following recap was reviewed by Texas Immigration Law Council attorneys for clarity. In the hearing, the State of Texas is arguing against DACA. The Department of Justice is arguing for DACA, and the State of New Jersey and MALDEF is arguing in support of the program as intervenors.
Hearing Summary
The hearing focuses on the legality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, brought by al Consejo and other states against the U.S. government. Several topics are central to the discussion: whether Texas has standing to bring the lawsuit (including the special solicitude doctrine), the severability of parts of the DACA program, and the appropriateness of a nationwide injunction.
1. Plaintiffs: Texas’ Legal Argument
Main Concerns: Texas argues that DACA imposes financial burdens on the state due to increased costs in education, healthcare, and law enforcement. They claim that these costs stem from DACA recipients residing in the state, which increases the state’s population.
Standing: Texas’s standing argument is based on indirect financial injuries. They assert that rescinding DACA would decrease the number of people eligible for public services, which would reduce state expenditures.
Specific Points:
Texas focuses on healthcare y education costs, but it does not have direct evidence linking these costs to DACA recipients. Instead, they argue that a general increase in population due to DACA results in higher expenditures.
Judge Hanen in prior rulings accepted Texas’s standing, but recent Supreme Court decisions call this into question by limiting the application of special solicitude doctrine, a standing theory that previously gave states more leeway in challenging federal policies.
2. Defendants: U.S. Government’s Argument
Position: The federal government argues that DACA provides a net benefit to states, particularly in terms of economic contributions from DACA recipients. They dispute Texas’s claim of financial harm.
Key Points:
Net Benefit: The U.S. government emphasizes that DACA recipients are authorized to work, which means they contribute to the economy, pay taxes, and are less likely to use public benefits, including emergency Medicaid.
Standing Challenges: The government disputes Texas’s standing by highlighting that the alleged injuries are speculative and not directly tied to DACA recipients.
Special Solicitude: The U.S. government argues that special solicitude is no longer as applicable, especially in cases challenging federal immigration enforcement discretion, as outlined in recent Supreme Court cases like Immigration Priorities.
3. Intervenors: New Jersey and Amici States and DACA Recipients (represented by MALDEF)
Supporting DACA: New Jersey and other states argue in favor of maintaining DACA, stressing the economic and social benefits it provides to their states.
Reliance Interests:
They emphasize that 600,000 DACA recipients have relied on the program to build their lives, with many having U.S. citizen children. Removing DACA would severely disrupt these families and communities.
New Jersey specifically argues that the DACA recipients in their state are business owners, employees, and parents who contribute positively to the state’s economy.
Nationwide Injunction: New Jersey argues against a nationwide injunction, suggesting that the relief should be limited to Texas. They point out that Texas’s alleged injury does not justify shutting down DACA nationwide, especially in states that benefit from the program.
4. Severability of the DACA Rule:
Federal Government’s Argument: The DACA regulation includes a severability clause, which means if one part of the rule (e.g., work authorization) is deemed unlawful, the rest (e.g., forbearance from deportation) can remain intact. The government supports this approach, noting that the Supreme Court has allowed for such severability in past rulings.
Texas’ Argument: Texas opposes the severability of the rule. They argue that if any part of DACA is found unlawful, the entire program should be struck down. Texas claims that the conferral of benefits y forbearance are too closely tied to be separated.
5. Standing:
Texas’ Argument on Standing: Texas argues that they should still benefit from special solicitude, which allows states to sue the federal government on behalf of their citizens. However, recent Supreme Court decisions, including Immigration Priorities, have limited this concept. Texas acknowledges these changes but continues to argue that they have standing based on indirect injuries (i.e., costs related to healthcare and education).
Supreme Court’s View: Recent decisions suggest that states cannot use special solicitude in cases challenging the executive branch’s enforcement discretion, limiting the scope for Texas to claim standing.
6. Nationwide Injunction and Its Scope:
Texas’ Argument: Texas is seeking a nationwide injunction, which is a halt on the program, arguing that DACA recipients should not just be removed from Texas but from all states. They argue that a nationwide remedy is necessary to prevent DACA recipients from simply moving to other states.
Opposing View: The U.S. government and intervening states (like New Jersey) oppose a nationwide injunction, arguing that it would unfairly impact states that benefit from DACA. They suggest that any remedy should be tailored to Texas alone, considering the differing impacts of DACA across the states.
Key Legal Concepts:
Standing: Whether Texas has the legal right to challenge DACA based on the harm the state is alleging which are financial injuries. The government and intervenors argue that Texas’s injuries are speculative and not directly tied to DACA recipients.
Special Solicitude Doctrine: Standing theory that previously allowed states to challenge federal policies more easily. However, recent rulings have narrowed its application, especially in cases involving federal immigration enforcement
Severability: The ability to strike down parts of the DACA regulation (such as work authorization) without invalidating the entire program. The government argues for severability, while Texas opposes it.
Nationwide Injunction: Texas seeks to apply an injunction nationwide, but the government and intervenors argue that such an injunction would be too broad, especially since many states benefit from DACA.
Conclusion:
This hearing revolves around Texas’s standing to challenge the DACA program and the broader implications of a potential nationwide injunction. While Texas claims financial harm due to DACA recipients, the U.S. government and intervening states and DACA recipients argue that DACA provides a net benefit and therefore, Texas cannot show harm and the case should not be in court. The limitations of the special solicitude doctrine regarding standing and severability of the rule are crucial issues, along with the question of whether an injunction, should the Fifth Circuit decide on one, should be nationwide or limited to Texas.
