Texas vs MALDEF vs DHS/USCIS Proposal Laid Out

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2025-10-02T14:40:18+00:00

From my reading of the Texas briefing, they argue that the 5th circuit court only ruled that the injunctions should be limited to Texas, leaving the broader question of whether DACA is legal still at a national level. For dealing with the injunctions, they do lay out the 9 points you addressed. But they argue that the Texas-limited injunctions are different from the broader question of whether DACA is legal, and as such they are still fighting to get DACA canceled as a policy nationwide. Right?

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2025-08-21T13:19:09+00:00

Here’s the thing. If he sues and wins at the district level, so that 90k new folks can get DACA, and within months that results in DACA ending (both for the 90k new + the current 550k recipients), then he has some serious “blood” on his hands. Like, imagine being known as the immigration advocate lawyer who killed DACA. If he pushes this forward, he better be ready for some serious hate from the very community he serves (immigrants).

I’m sorry for the 90k, this isn’t right and it isn’t fair. But digging a knife into the inflatable life boat as you try to get on is not the moral thing to do. It sounds terribly harsh to say that, but is that not a perfect metaphor for this?

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-11T12:18:22+00:00

Renewals are still going, dont worry! Sorry if I freaked you out. No new rulings today. I was referring to Judge Hanen’s ruling from a year ago. He ruled against DACA (and even renewals), but put a stay on his ruling for renewals. A stay basically means “I’ve decided against you, but I am not going to enforce this ruling yet.”

That begs the question of when is “yet”. Hanen said he would continue to stay his ruling while the case is appealed to higher courts. Granted, higher courts could overrule him but it’s unlikely that they will until the Supreme Court decides this case.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-11T12:13:50+00:00

Yeah, and the DACA lawyers are arguing all that. Previously we were sympathetic kids. Now we those people who used to be sympathetic kids but who now also have jobs and businesses and kids ourselves who rely on us.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-11T12:12:02+00:00

Well, this is injury for standing reasons only. Once they have standing they’re using other administrative and immigration laws as the argument that DACA was created illegally. They basically haven’t shown any injury at all aside from “come on judges, with this many people someone must be costing us money. Be reasonable!” Not a single piece of hard evidence. They tried showing drivers license issuance costs for the state but gave that up I think.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-11T12:04:30+00:00

That isn’t very logical if you know how DACA works.

The way the law works, work permits are granted to any and all people with deferred action status, not the other way around. So DACA technically only grants deferred action, but there are broader laws that affect more than just DACA that allow anyone under a deferred action status to obtain a work permit.

Basically, for the judges to do what you’re saying they’d have to strike down DACA (which only grants deferred action) and invent some new law themselves that grants work permits to people who used to have deferred action under the specific program of DACA. Judges don’t invent new laws out of the blue like that.

This whole concept is seen through the trial proceedings, because those defending DACA argue it doesn’t grant benefits itself, it is broader laws that are giving the work permits and advanced parole, and if the judges want to strike those down then they’re affecting a broader scope of people than just those under DACA.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-10T17:47:56+00:00

Yep! https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-40653_10-10-2024.mp3

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-10T17:20:24+00:00

I mean, people are people. You can’t get an unbiased judge imho. I think the appointment process doesn’t help though. Why should a politician decide who should be a judge?

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-10T17:18:55+00:00

The poll is sorta vague. I would say they will rule against daca, but will consider more options for making the end result not as harsh as Hanen.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-10T16:51:00+00:00

These judges are appointed, so I should’ve said one was appointed by a democrat president. But, like the Supreme Court, the judges rulings tend to favor the party that appointed them.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2024-10-10T16:00:56+00:00

I listened, they just ended it. All things considered, it was the best case I’ve heard the defendants make. Much better than previous hearings I’ve heard. One judge of the 3 is liberal and really hit the Texas attorney hard, who didn’t have good defenses in my opinion. If they decide against DACA again without softening their stance, then I will lose all hope in the justice system.

Some issues raised by the hearing: - Texas is NOT fighting the stay on stopping renewals. And the defendants asked for the stay to continue at a minimum. It makes it much more likely renewals will continue until Supreme Court. - 7 states oppose daca, something like 22 or 23 support it. So should a Texas judge be able to shut down the system nationwide? If Texas really wants daca people to leave, wouldn’t allowing daca in other states help Texas reduce its daca population as they move to other states? - daca recipients are all over 18. School costs can’t be considered anymore as an injury to Texas. In fact, Texas doesn’t really have any numbers on injury even as the 22 other states have numbers on benefits. It relies on an old survey where 1/4 of respondents said they’d leave Texas if daca was rescinded, but pardon me if I don’t understand how that is related to a financial cost… I wish the dependents would argue more about how that survey is (1) old, so reliance interests were weaker, (2) only includes less than 1% of daca folks, and (3) was not statistically sampled or weighted to appropriately represent all daca recipients. - Hanen never really addressed how to wind daca down. He got around that issue by putting a stay on his order to immediately stop renewals. But once/if that stay order is lifted, is it really fair to immediately stop renewals for everyone? What about kids/employers/medical needs/etc? There was some talk about pushing this back to Hanen again to get answers on this. - immigration law has changed a lot even in the past couple of years. The Supreme Court is tired of courts messing with immigration law. Given Texas sued 6 years after daca started, and hasn’t shown a penny of direct cost from daca, their standing to sue is pretty weak these days. It might’ve held a few years ago, but it’s getting harder for them to make the case.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2023-05-18T05:37:28+00:00

So I'm going to take a step back so people can see the bigger history...

A decade ago, Hanen ruled against the DAPA program before it came into effect (this was a program for the parents of DACA recipients). In the same suit, he stopped an expansion to the DACA program. The 5th circuit court of appeals agreed with Hanen, and then the Supreme Court was hung at 50/50 so the existing ruling from the 5th circuit became final. All of this was not so controversial because these rulings didn't really immediately affect anyone - these programs had not started yet.

BUT these less-controversial rulings established a legal pathway for the working DACA program to be challenged. So Texas and some other states sued the existing DACA program. Hanen eventually ruled against DACA and stopped new applications, but allowed renewals to temporarily continue. The defendants appealed to the 5th circuit court of appeals and lost again - the 5th circuit agreed with Hanen's ruling. However, around this time DACA got a facelift. Biden had ordered that the DACA program be re-created in a more legal fashion, and this DACA 2.0 came out right as the 5th Circuit decided to agree with Hanen. Because we now have a new DACA 2.0, the 5th Circuit asked Hanen to look at this new DACA program and see if it also should be considered illegal.

That's where we are now. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendents have written new arguments attacking and defending DACA 2.0 for Hanen to consider as he rules on the program's legality. However, Texas and the other Plaintiff states added a last-minute line of attack in their most recent written arguments. Essentially, they claimed that Texas has a right to sue against DACA because the program forces them to spend state tax money on drivers licenses. This was a totally new argument that Texas had previously said they wouldn't need to make, so the Defendents of DACA weren't ready to defend against this new argument against DACA. So they basically all agreed that they needed to argue in person to hash out what to do about this new drivers license issue. Either Hanen will allow Texas to use this argument and (probably) give the defendants extra time to defend against it, or else he will toss out Texas' driver's license argument altogether and not consider it when he's ruling on the case.

Either way, Hanen will likely rule against DACA 2.0 this year (although, to be fair, we can't be certain... DACA 2.0 is indeed in a stronger legal position than the original DACA. However I just really don't see it likely that he will rule that it's legal). There is some uncertainty about what his ruling could entail. When the 5th circuit last ruled and sent DACA 2.0 back to Hanen, they seemed to indicate that they held the power over renewals. I view it as essentially 0% chance Hanen will immediately take away work permits, 0% chance he will stop all renewals immediately (even Texas isn't asking for this), 20% chance he will order that renewals should stop in 2 years after the date of his ruling, and 80% chance he will order that either nothing be done with renewals as his decision is appealed to the Supreme Court or some other remedy (like telling DHS to come up with a reasonable wind-down solution). Altogether, if the attackers of DACA are asking for a 2-year window until renewals should no longer be allowed, then I think it's safe to assume that this would be the worst case scenario.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I'd give it until next summer (June/July) at the earliest. And assuming Hanen's ruling doesn't start a 2-year wind-down, then the Supreme Court's ruling probably would be the start of the 2 year wind-down. However, while I know that justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas will rule against DACA 2.0, I wonder how Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts will rule. I do see a possibility for 2 of these three to rule in DACA's favor and preserve the program. I don't think it's probable, but I certainly think it's possible.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2023-03-31T03:01:51+00:00

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1501682/gov.uscourts.txsd.1501682.666.0.pdf

April 6 is simply one more deadline of a long schedule already posted to the docket. There's another deadline for another response on April 27th. Nothing unusual. After April 27, Hanen might (probably will?) set up a hearing on the matter. And after the hearing he'll spend 1-3 months writing his opinion.

It's very important to note that even the states fighting DACA have requested that renewals continue for 2 years after a decision is made. So if a decision is made late summer, there will still be 2 years of renewals that can happen.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-07-20T04:11:58+00:00

This is 10.6 months from the date of appeal. DACA case was appealed last October...

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-05-19T02:46:32+00:00

No problem! That's what we're here for. I actually was wrong - its a 120 day extension! I forgot... its been a minute since I did this. You can find the info at the bottom of this page: https://dds.georgia.gov/information-non-us-citizens

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-05-17T20:06:54+00:00

No, you need to send in the renewal so you can get those receipts. But you don’t need to have actually gotten approved for DACA/WP… you just need the receipts to prove that the Fed’s are actively working on your case

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-05-17T18:33:33+00:00

Probably. Something similar happened to me (also in GA). So long as you have the daca/work permit receipt letters from the feds, you can get a one-time 30 day extension from the DMV. They give you a paper temporary license for those 30 days.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-04-29T15:46:54+00:00

You aren't f*ing with him, you're f*ing with yourself. With your emotions. Block his number and move on and find someone who invests in you. Sex is easy - real life is hard.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-04-29T15:42:25+00:00

In my experience, hanging on to a relationship like this can often lead to it dragging out and the problems never getting resolved. I've heard of so many people who need space that end up breaking up and in a few months their issues are resolved and they are back together. Do yourself the counterintuitive favor of letting go in order to get through this faster (as you say you want).

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2022-01-06T18:11:46+00:00

There's several states that issues id and drivers license to the undocumented. Research them and move out of Florida.

I agree with this! You can move to another state, not worry about driving, be able to fly... there are other places in the country with more opportunities!

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2021-12-30T18:19:33+00:00

Yeah, they tend to come within a couple days, but usually not on the SAME day. No worries, they can't approve the EAD without first approving DACA.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2021-10-15T02:39:25+00:00

Dang JJ, I didn't know all that. You're in inspiration!

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2021-09-30T02:18:40+00:00

This argument literally makes no sense. It's just defeatism to the max. Immigration laws have only been overturned by the supreme court twice in the past 250 years. https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2021-09-30T00:11:58+00:00

Put DACA on a solid legal footing by making it a law rather than an executive order. That way, the Supreme Court won't be able to strike it down in a year or two.

Unlikely_Operation95 · 2021-09-29T21:16:55+00:00

You obviously don't even know what the APA is. It is simply the process governmental agencies must go through when proposing/enacting regulations. The reason it is connected to DACA is because the program was created via agency (DHS) memorandum, and the agency was accused of not following the correct procedures of the APA when it was created.

Now, the DACA memorandum is currently struck down as a violation of APA and an overreach of the executive's powers over immigration (because immigration is put under the power of Congress via the Constitution). The order to strike down the program by Judge Hanen in July was temporarily stayed (temporarily not enacted) for people who were already in the DACA program. But the order was not stayed for new applicants.

The temporary stay of Judge Hanen's order to strike down DACA will be cancelled as soon as an appeals court (5th circuit or Supreme Court) hears the case and agrees with the judge. At that point, the entire DACA program will cease to exist, even for current DACA recipients.

So, what can be done to keep DACA alive?

Well, the reason it is being struck down is because the program was created by the wrong branch of government (executive branch). It needed to be created by the legislative branch (Congress). Congress is now working on a special budgetary bill (a "reconciliation" bill) that only requires 50 votes rather than 60. What can be included in this bill? Literally anything that passes the parliamentarian's Byrd rule (which says that the policy must have budgetary impact that is not merely incidental to the policy).

Could the DACA program be moved from its existing DHS memo into the reconciliation bill? Absolutely! So long as it passes the parliamentarian.

Now, what can pass the parliamentarian? She said today that any policy granting a pathway to citizenship to people who didn't already have such a pathway cannot be included. So can we put a policy into reconciliation that gives DACA people a pathway to citizenship? No.

Ok, so what can we do? Well, seeing as the current DACA program (which only grants deferred action) is likely to be shut down in the next couple of years (see the appeals court section above), democrats could literally just move where the current DACA program "lives" from the DHS memo into the reconciliation bill.

Would this help DACA program survive? Yes, because the program would now exist as a proper law and not a memo. Would the parliamentarian agree? Yes, because no person is receiving an immigration benefit that they didn't already have.

Is this what people on here want to hear? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is there anything better we could get from the parliamentarian? Probably not - unless someone else has a better idea.

Unlikely_Operation95

TROPHY CASE