While a federal judge on Wednesday declared illegal a revised version of a federal policy that prevents the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, he declined to order an immediate halt to the program and the protections it provides to recipients. orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen agreed with Texas and eight other states that sought to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The judge’s ruling was ultimately expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, putting the program’s fate before the Supreme Court for a third time.

While this Court sympathizes with the plight of DACA recipients and their families, it has for some time raised concerns about the legality of the program, Hanen wrote in his 40-page ruling. The solution to these shortcomings lies with the legislature, not the executive or judiciary. Congress has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation for a variety of reasons… The executive branch cannot usurp the power granted to Congress by the Constitution, even to fill a gap.

Hanen’s order expanded the current order in place against DACA, which prevented the government from approving new applications but kept the program intact for existing recipients during the ongoing legal review.

Hanen also turned down a request from the states to end the program within two years. Hanen said his order does not require the federal government to take action against DACA recipients, known as Dreamers.

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, which is representing DACA recipients in the lawsuit, said it will ultimately be up to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to rule on legality and whether Texas proved it had been harmed by the program.

Judge Hanen has consistently erred in resolving both issues, and today’s ruling is largely the same flawed analysis. We look forward to continuing to defend the lawful and much-needed DACA program upon review by higher courts, Saenz said.

The Biden administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s DACA ruling from the South Texas court,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Wednesday evening. … As we have long maintained, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that DACA is unlawful, and we will continue to defend this critical policy against legal challenges. While we do this in accordance with the court order, DHS will continue to process renewals for current DACA recipients and DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] may continue to accept DACA applications.

The Texas attorney general’s office, which represented the states in the lawsuit, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the federal government, did not immediately return emails or phone calls seeking comment.

The states have argued that the Obama administration did not have the authority to do so

First

created the program in 2012 because it bypassed Congress.

In 2021, Hanen had declared the program illegal, ruling that it did not require public notice and comment periods under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

The Biden administration sought to address Hanen’s concerns with a new version of DACA that took effect in October 2022 and was subject to public comment as part of a formal rulemaking process.

But Hanen, who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that the updated version of DACA was still illegal since the Biden administration’s new version was essentially the same as the old version, which had started under the Obama administration. Hanen had previously said DACA was unconstitutional.

Hanen had also previously ruled that the states could bring their lawsuit because they had been harmed by the program.

The states claim they are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in health care

healthcare, education and other costs when immigrants are allowed to stay in the country illegally. The states in the south are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

Those defending the program, the federal government, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the state of New Jersey, had argued that the states had failed to provide evidence that the costs they claim to have incurred were related to DACA recipients. They also argued that Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security the legal authority to set immigration enforcement policy.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there were 578,680 people enrolled in DACA at the end of March.

The program has faced a roller coaster of legal challenges over the years.

In 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 over expanded DACA and a version of the program for parents of DACA recipients. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly terminated DACA, allowing it to remain in place.

In 2022, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans affirmed Hanen’s earlier ruling, declaring DACA illegal, but sent the case back to him to review changes the Biden administration made to the program.

President

Joe

Biden and advocacy groups have called on Congress to pass permanent protections

dDreamers.

Congress has failed several times to pass proposals called the D

belt REAM

Act to protect DACA recipients.

We continue to urge Congress and President Biden to create permanent solutions for all immigrants, to ensure no one is left behind on the dangerous path DACA has been on over the past decade, said Veronica Garcia, an attorney with Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an advocacy organization. in a statement.