Updates on Administrative Relief: Oral Arguments in the Texas v. United States case and Post-Injunction 3-year Employment Authorization Documents under 2012 DACA
On July 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit listened to oral arguments regarding President Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA deferred action programs. The arguments are available here. If the Obama administration prevails and these programs are implemented, they would provide temporary, but renewable, relief from deportation for approximately 4.4 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. Roughly 700,000 undocumented farmworkers and their spouses are estimated to be eligible for DAPA or expanded DACA.1
Having heard the arguments, the three judge panel will now have to decide whether to keep in place the injunction issued by the district court in Texas or whether to lift the injunction and allow the programs to be implemented. The issues before the court are whether the state of Texas has standing for its lawsuit against the federal government and whether the claims presented by Texas and the other states are matters than can be decided by the federal courts. Alternatively, the Court can consider on constitutional grounds whether the president overstepped his authority when he created DAPA and expanded DACA programs. If the court finds that the President did overstep his authority, it would affirm the February injunction of the District Court that prevented President Obama’s plan from moving forward.
As to whether Texas and the states even have the power to challenge the federal executive branch's authority to regulate immigration (the “standing” issue), the arguments on that issue largely have centered on the costs Texas would incur by having to issue driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries. Texas has said it would be a burden to have to pay at least $130 each for driver’s licenses for as many as 500,000 unauthorized immigrants who could obtain the licenses if they received deferrals under the president’s programs. Texas is arguing that the driver’s license costs are an injury that gives them the right to sue. Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller told the panel that the suing states will be harmed if the president’s policies are allowed to take effect, as they’d result in undocumented immigrants gaining lawful presence in the U.S and becoming eligible certain health-care benefits.
On the other side of the arguments, the US Government’s lawyer (Benjamin C. Mizer, a principal deputy assistant attorney general) asked the panel to lift the injunction and clear the way for President Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA programs. He noted that these programs are meant to protect qualifying immigrants from deportation and allow them to work in the country legally. Judges Smith and Elrod questionned the US government about its contention that the administration had ample authority to focus immigration enforcement on deporting immigrants who commit crimes or threaten national security, and to defer deportations of those who pose little risk to public safety and have families in the United States. Assistant Attorney General Mizer argued that both of the elements at the heart of Obama’s directive — stopping deportations and subsequently granting those immigrants work permits — were legally sound. Judge Elrod’s question in response underscored her skepticism - “So the secretary has boundless discretion to give work authorization to whomever he wants and it is not constrained by congressional law?”
Two of the judges on Friday's panel, Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod, were in the majority on the panel that voted 2-1 in May against allowing the deferred action programs to continue pending the appeal of the injunction. In that prior opinion, they disagreed with the US Government’s contention that Texas had no standing. They also previously ruled that the Obama action was subject to judicial review under the federal Administrative Procedures Act (in other words, that the Obama Administration should have engaged in notice and comment rule-making to create the DAPA and expanded DACA programs), which the Justice Department disputes.
The July 10 oral arguments lasted for more than three hours. The judges did not say when a decision will be issued. Whoever the losing party is, it is likely they will appeal the decision. The losing party could seek “en banc” review by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals; however, it is not clear that this would be advantageous for the US government to do. The next step would be a request for the Supreme Court to review the issue. The timing of the 5th Circuit’s ruling is important because of the limited intake of cases and calendar of the Supreme Court’s oral argument sessions as well as the upcoming presidential campaign. A decision from the nation’s highest court could come during the intensity of the 2016 presidential campaign. The last time around, after the appeals court considered the emergency request to stay the injunction, that ruling wasn’t handed down until more than a month after the oral arguments in April. It’s conceivable a final decision on the constitutionality of President Obama’s immigration executive order may not come until the summer of 2016.
DACA Post-Injunction 3-Year EADs
As we mentioned in our last update, the DACA 2012 program is not affected by the injunction and continues in effect. The only piece of the 2012 DACA program that has been impacted is the issuance by DHS of 3-year employment authorization documents (EADs) after the issuance of the injunction on February 16, 2015. The Judge has ordered DHS to show compliance with the injunction by July 31, 2015 and DHS is replacing the 3-year EADs issued or mailed after the injunction with 2-year EADs. Three year EADs issued or mailed to DACA recipients on or after the February 16, 2015 injunction must be returned to DHS. If DHS does not recover the 3-year EAD, it may call recipients and possibly conduct home visits to recover the 3-year EADs. It is very important that individuals who fall in this category return their 3-year EADs. DHS is threatening to take adverse action against those DACA recipients who fail to return their 3-year EADs, including the possible termination of DACA employment authorization, with possible negative future implications.
This recall does not apply to the approximately 108,000 three-year EADs that were approved and mailed by USCIS on or before the February 16, 2015, injunction date and that have never been returned or reissued by USCIS.
For those who would like assistance knowing whether the recall applies to their EADS, United We Dream has developed a tool for people to "screen" themselves: www.unitedwedream.org/uscisalert.
On CLINIC’s webpage in English and Spanish
And from NILC: http://nilc.org/nr071515.html.
1Ed Kissam and Jo Ann Intili, Number, Distribution, and Profile of Farmworkers Eligible for DAPA or DACA, (Revised/Expanded analysis), Werner-Kohnstamm Family Fund, Dec. 12, 2014, at p. 3, available at http://www.wkfamilyfund.org/docs/Profile-Farmworkers-Eligible-for-DAPA-or-DACA.pdf.