The appellate court demonstrates reservations towards DACA, yet may restrict its decision to invalidate it entirely.
In a hearing held on Thursday in New Orleans, judges from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals showed signs of possible tolerance towards maintaining certain aspects of the DACA program, which was established in 2012 during the Obama administration.
This court hearing is just the latest event in a six-year long legal dispute surrounding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Texas, joined by eight other states, asserted that the program has resulted in negative impacts on their states due to the increased public health care and educational expenditures associated with DACA recipients. They claim that these non-citizens would leave voluntarily if the program were discontinued. More than half a million individuals are currently enrolled in the DACA system.
However, an attorney representing New Jersey, which is defending the program alongside the Biden administration, argued in court that numerous individuals, including the US citizen children who depend on the income of their DACA parent-recipients, are reliant on the program's continuation.
In an earlier instance, US District Judge Andrew Hanen, appointed by George W. Bush, previously ruled against the program, prohibiting both current and future recipients nationwide. However, due to the ongoing appeal process, the implementation of this ruling was temporarily paused, preserving the current enrollees' status quo.
The Biden administration argues that Texas lacks the authorization to initiate the lawsuit in the first place. During the hearing, 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, questioned the legitimacy of the Justice Department's stance on standing issues. Despite this, Smith appeared interested in the Justice Department's discussion on the 'severability clause' included in the final DACA regulation under President Biden.
This clause implies that if a court finds one aspect of the regulation or law to be unlawful, it can separate that specific part while keeping the rest of the policy functional. Smith's interest in this matter hints at a potential ruling that could invalidate only the work authorization benefits while preserving the protection from deportation for DACA recipients.
Furthermore, Smith's fellow GOP appointee, Judge Edith Brown Clement, emphasized the nationwide extent of the initial judge's ruling during her brief comments during the hearing. The Supreme Court, in several previous cases related to DACA, has expressed caution towards issuing nationwide injunctions.
The ongoing legal dispute over DACA is deeply rooted in politics, with Texas and other states arguing against the program based on its financial impacts. The judges' questioning of the Justice Department's stance during the hearing underlines the political complexity surrounding DACA.
