Texas v. United States
| Citation | 50 F.4th 498 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-40680 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Parties | State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Arkansas; State of Louisiana; State of Nebraska; State of South Carolina; State of West Virginia; State of Kansas; State of Mississippi, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Troy Miller, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellants, Elizabeth Diaz; Jose Magana-Salgado; Karina Ruiz De Diaz; Jin Park; Denise Romero; Angel Silva; Moses Kamau Chege; Hyo-Won Jeon; Blanca Gonzalez; Maria Rocha; Maria Diaz; Elly Marisol Estrada; Darwin Velasquez; Oscar Alvarez; Luis A. Rafael; Nanci J. Palacios Godinez; Jung Woo Kim; Carlos Aguilar Gonzalez; State of New Jersey, Intervenor Defendants-Appellants. |
Before RICHMAN, Chief Judge, and HO and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges
In 2012 the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program was set forth in a three-page memorandum (to which we will refer as the DACA Memorandum or the memorandum).[1] Among other provisions, the DACA Memorandum directed that removal of certain aliens who entered the United States unlawfully as children should be deferred and that these immigrants should receive certain benefits. Eight states and the Governors of two states, led by Texas, have challenged DACA's validity.[2] In ruling on competing motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the DACA Memorandum violates procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[3] The district court vacated the DACA Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration but temporarily stayed that vacatur as it applies to current DACA recipients.[4] The district court further ruled that DHS may continue to accept new and renewal DACA applications but enjoined DHS from approving any new DACA applications.[5] We affirm the district court's judgment in part, but remand to the district court rather than DHS in light of a final rule promulgated by DHS in August 2022.[6]
Under these criteria, the district court concluded that about 1.5 million aliens were covered by the DACA Memorandum.[9]
The memorandum instructs immigration agencies to "exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal "[10] United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was directed to "establish a clear and efficient process" to that end.[11]
Those granted deferred action became eligible for other benefits. By virtue of deferred action, recipients were deemed "lawfully present" under pre-existing federal regulations and could seek work authorization, and were eligible for Social Security and Medicare.[12] The memorandum expressly stated that "USCIS shall accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action."[13]
The memorandum contained several disclaimers. "DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases."[14] The memorandum says that it "confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship."[15] It purports to "set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of existing law."[16]
Two years later, in November 2014, DHS issued a memorandum to expand DACA and institute a related program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).[17] The DACA expansion would have removed the age limit, extended the entry date from 2007 to 2010, and extended the renewable deferred action period from two years to three years.[18] Up to 4.3 million parents of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents would have been eligible under the DAPA program.[19] (work authorization); 8 C.F.R. § 1.3(a)(4)(vi) (Social Security); 42 C.F.R § 417.422(h) (Medicare).
Twenty-six states filed suit in the Southern District of Texas to prevent DAPA's implementation.[20] The district court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction.[21] In Texas v. United States (DAPA),[22] this court affirmed the grant of injunctive relief.[23] We held that DAPA likely violated procedural APA requirements because it was a substantive rule that required notice and comment.[24] We also held that DAPA likely violated substantive APA requirements because it was "manifestly contrary" to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).[25] The Supreme Court affirmed this court's judgment without an opinion by an equally divided vote.[26]
After a change in Presidential administrations, the new Attorney General determined that DACA was likewise unlawful.[27] DHS then issued a memorandum attempting to rescind DACA.[28] In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California,[29] the Supreme Court held that DACA's rescission violated the APA. The Court first determined that the rescission decision was reviewable.[30] DACA "conferr[ed] affirmative immigration relief," granting both forbearance from removal and other benefits attendant to deferred action: eligibility for work authorization, Social Security, and Medicare.[31] "Because the DACA program is more than a non-enforcement policy, its rescission is subject to review under the APA," the Court explained.[32]
The Court then held that the decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious.[33] DHS did not explain why it was terminating "the forbearance policy at the heart of DACA," instead of the benefits alone.[34]"[G]iven DHS's earlier judgment that forbearance is 'especially justified' for 'productive young people' who were brought here as children and 'know only this country as home,' the DACA Memorandum could not be rescinded in full 'without any consideration whatsoever' of a forbearance-only policy," the Court concluded.[35] The rescission was also arbitrary and capricious because DHS "failed to address whether there was 'legitimate reliance' on the DACA Memorandum."[36]
In May 2018, while litigation over DACA's rescission was ongoing, several states filed this lawsuit against the Government challenging DACA's implementation in the first instance.[37] A group of twenty-two DACA recipients and the State of New Jersey intervened as codefendants.38[] The plaintiff States and Governors, to whom we will hereafter refer as "the States" for simplicity, requested a preliminary injunction. Although the district court held that the States would likely succeed on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims, the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction[39] because of the States' delay in raising the challenge and the relative hardship enjoining DACA would cause to the defendants and the public.[40]
After the Supreme Court's decision in Regents, the States and the DACA Recipients filed cross-motions for summary judgment.[41] The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the States.[42] It concluded that DACA violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the APA.[43]The court held that DACA was procedurally deficient because it failed to undergo notice and comment.[44] DACA was not a general policy statement exempt from notice and comment because it involved "significant rights and obligations" and imposed "fixed criteria."[45] The district court further held that DACA was substantively unlawful because it violated the INA and other immigration statutes.[46] The district court concluded that DACA was "'in excess of statutory jurisdiction' and 'short of statutory right' ...." because "Congress's clear articulation of laws for removal, lawful presence, and work authorization illustrates a manifest intent to reserve for itself the authority to determine the framework of the nation's immigration system."[47]
The district court vacated the DACA Memorandum and remanded the proceedings to DHS.[48] However, the district court temporarily stayed the vacatur as to the approximately 600,000 existing DACA recipients.[49]The court's judgment also permitted DHS to accept new and renewal DACA applications but enjoined the DHS from approving any new applications and granting any attendant status.[50] The defendants appealed to this court.[51]The DHS also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with the stated intent to "preserve and fortify DHS's DACA...
To continue reading
Request your trial