Simone Lawson
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs have been the subject of legal debate, with 26 states challenging their constitutionality. The Supreme Court has considered whether these programs violate federal laws and the Constitution, specifically the Take Care Clause which mandates the President's faithful execution of laws. The lower courts' decisions focused on the government's alleged failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court's request for additional briefing on the Take Care Clause indicates a desire to resolve all issues, including the legality of DACA and DAPA, and their potential impact on immigration policy.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of states that claim DACA and DAPA violate federal laws and the Constitution | 26 |
| The name of the clause that DACA and DAPA allegedly violate | "Take Care Clause" |
| The Article and Section of the Constitution that the "Take Care Clause" refers to | Article II, Section 3 |
| The exact wording of the "Take Care Clause" | " [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." |
| The alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) | DACA and DAPA initiatives are arbitrary and capricious or not in accordance with immigration laws |
| The federal government's failure to comply with the APA | The federal government did not comply with certain technical procedural requirements under the APA, including notice-and-comment rulemaking |
| The Supreme Court's first consideration | Whether the states have standing, or legal capacity, to bring the lawsuit |
| The four issues before the Supreme Court | Do any of the states have standing (legal capacity) to bring the suit?; Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all ‘aliens’ with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the APA to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more ‘aliens’ having deferred action; Do expanded DACA and DAPA violate federal law?; Whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law |
| The date when Texas and 25 other states sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas | December 3, 2014 |
| The date when Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the DAPA program | February 16, 2015 |
| The number of undocumented parents eligible for DAPA | 3.6 million |
| The number of undocumented parents residing in states that did not join the lawsuit | 2.2 million |
| The number of young men and women who came to the US as children and have been allowed to attend school, support their families, etc. due to DACA | Nearly 800,000 |
| The number of states that wrote a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that the Trump administration agree to end the program | 10 |
| The number of law professors who signed an open letter to the president stating that the DACA program is lawful and constitutional | 105 |
Explore related products
![Immigration Law Pocket Field Guide 2025 Edition [LATEST EDITION]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51EuQoWa2OL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
![Understanding Immigration Law and Practice [Connected eBook] (Aspen Paralegal Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81JV3wS8LvL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
DACA and DAPA violate the Take Care Clause
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs have been the subject of legal challenges, with some arguing that they violate the Constitution and federal laws. Specifically, it has been claimed that these programs contravene the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed".
The "Take Care Clause", found in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, mandates that the President faithfully execute the laws. In the context of DACA and DAPA, 26 states asserted that these programs violate the "Take Care Clause" because they effectively declare unlawful conduct to be lawful. This argument suggests that the President, through DACA and DAPA, is not faithfully executing the laws as required by the Constitution.
The legal challenges to DACA and DAPA began in December 2014 when Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit sought to prevent the implementation of both DAPA and the expansion of DACA, arguing that these programs violated the Constitution and federal statutes. A preliminary injunction was issued in February 2015, blocking the DAPA program from taking effect while the lawsuit was ongoing. The Obama Administration appealed this decision but was ultimately unsuccessful in the lower courts.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which directed both sides to address whether the President's actions violated the "Take Care Clause". The Court's request for additional briefing on this issue indicated a desire to comprehensively resolve all the legal questions surrounding DACA and DAPA, rather than leaving potential loopholes for future lower court decisions. However, the Supreme Court's eventual 4-4 deadlock decision in June 2016 set no precedent and simply maintained the lower court's injunction blocking the DAPA program.
Slavery Mentions in Confederate Constitution: A Detailed Analysis
You may want to see also
DACA and DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs have been challenged in federal court by 26 states, with the lawsuit claiming that the programs violate federal laws and the Constitution. One of the key arguments presented is that DACA and DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The APA requires that certain procedural steps be followed when implementing new policies or regulations. In the case of DACA and DAPA, it is argued that the federal government did not comply with these procedural requirements. Specifically, it is claimed that the government failed to meet the APA's notice-and-comment rulemaking provision before announcing the initiatives. This provision allows for public participation in the rulemaking process, giving interested parties the opportunity to comment on and influence the development of new regulations.
The states bringing the lawsuit argue that DACA and DAPA are "'arbitrary and capricious' and not in accordance with existing immigration laws. They contend that the programs were implemented without proper regard for the law and that the President's actions in creating these programs violated the APA's rulemaking requirements. The lower courts' decisions were based on this alleged failure to comply with the APA, rather than on the "'Take Care Clause' of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, directing both sides to address whether the President's actions violated the "Take Care Clause." The Court's decision to consider this constitutional question suggests a desire to comprehensively address all issues in the case, leaving no loopholes for future decisions by lower courts. The Supreme Court's eventual deadlock on the case, with a 4-4 decision, resulted in no precedent being set and the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the program remaining in place.
Supreme Court: Lifetime Appointment, Constitutional?
You may want to see also
DACA and DAPA: Lawful exercise of enforcement discretion?
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been a subject of debate and legal challenges since its creation. The program, which provides temporary protection from deportation and a path to legal status for certain individuals who came to the United States as children, has been expanded and challenged multiple times over the years.
In November 2014, President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA, which included expanding eligibility to undocumented immigrants who entered the country before 2010, removing the age limit for applicants, and extending the renewable deferral period to two years. These changes were challenged in court by Texas and 25 other states, who argued that the expansion of DACA and the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program violated federal laws and the Constitution. Specifically, they claimed that the programs violated the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The lower courts based their decisions on the alleged failure of the government to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rather than the "Take Care Clause."
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and directed both sides to address whether the President's actions violated the "Take Care Clause." In June 2016, the Supreme Court announced a 4-4 deadlock, leaving the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the program in place without setting any precedent. The case highlighted the divided opinions on the constitutionality of DACA and DAPA, with legal experts and courts offering differing interpretations.
While some argue that DACA and DAPA violate the Constitution and federal laws, others defend the programs as a lawful exercise of enforcement discretion by the executive branch. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and 105 law professors have asserted that DACA is lawful and constitutional, falling within the executive branch's historical discretion over deportation decisions. The Obama administration also defended the program, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act, which delegates enforcement discretion to the executive branch. However, critics like Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, counter that DACA unlawfully usurps Congress's role over immigration policy.
The legal battle over DACA and DAPA continues, with ongoing court cases and debates over the programs' legality and constitutionality. The outcome of these cases will have significant implications for the future of immigration policy and the lives of those impacted by these programs.
The Founding Fathers: Independence and Constitution Authors
You may want to see also
Explore related products
DACA and DAPA: Do states have standing to bring a lawsuit?
The question of whether states have the legal standing to bring a lawsuit against DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) has been a contentious issue that has reached the US Supreme Court. The lawsuit, brought by Texas and 25 other states, challenged the implementation of both DAPA and the expansion of DACA, arguing that they violate federal laws and the US Constitution.
The states argued that DACA and DAPA violate the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which mandates that the President "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." They also claimed that these initiatives contravene the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as they are arbitrary and capricious, and that the federal government failed to comply with certain procedural requirements under the APA before announcing the initiatives.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case, known as United States v. Texas, centred on several key issues. Firstly, the Court considered whether the states had standing, or the legal capacity, to bring the lawsuit. This question of standing is crucial, as without it, the case would be dismissed, and the injunction against DACA and DAPA would be lifted, allowing the federal government to implement these initiatives.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially upheld the district court's decision that Texas had standing to bring the lawsuit and agreed with the states' APA claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, the Supreme Court's review of the case focused on the broader constitutional implications, specifically the "Take Care Clause," which lower courts had not addressed in their decisions.
The Supreme Court's eventual deadlock on the case in 2016 left the lower court's injunction in place, blocking the implementation of DACA and DAPA. While the Supreme Court's decision did not set a precedent, it did highlight the complex legal and political nature of the issue, with potential consequences for immigration policy and the balance of power between states and the federal government.
Alien and Sedition Acts: Unconstitutional Violation?
You may want to see also
DACA and DAPA: Do they violate federal law?
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been a subject of debate regarding its constitutionality and legality. DACA was established in 2012 to provide temporary protection from deportation and a path to work authorization for certain individuals who entered the United States as children. The program has been expanded and challenged multiple times since its creation.
In 2014, President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA, including expanding eligibility to undocumented immigrants who entered the country before 2010, removing the age limit for applicants, and extending the renewable deferral period to two years. These changes were challenged in court by Texas and 25 other states, who argued that the expansion of DACA and the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program violated federal laws and the Constitution. The states claimed that the expansion of DACA and DAPA violated the "'Take Care Clause' of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed," and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to their arbitrary and capricious nature and non-compliance with immigration laws.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, United States v. Texas, and requested briefings on whether DACA and DAPA violated the "Take Care Clause." The Court's 4-4 deadlock decision in 2016 left the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the DAPA program in place without setting a precedent. The constitutionality and legality of DACA and DAPA remain contested, with legal experts and lower courts divided on the issue. Some argue that DACA unlawfully usurps Congress's role over immigration, while others defend it as a lawful exercise of the enforcement discretion delegated to the executive branch by Congress.
While the Supreme Court has not provided a definitive ruling on the matter, lower courts have issued varying decisions. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas found the DACA Final Rule unlawful in 2023, expanding the original 2021 injunction. However, the court maintained partial protection for DACA recipients who obtained their status before July 16, 2021. The USCIS continues to accept and process DACA renewal requests and accompanying employment authorization applications, but it does not process initial DACA requests at this time. The debate over DACA's constitutionality and legality continues, with ongoing court decisions and political discussions shaping the program's future.
False Advertising: What Actions Are Exempt?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It was first initiated by President Obama in 2012 and has provided a two-year deferred action and work authorization to nearly 730,000 young unauthorized immigrants.
DAPA stands for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. It was announced by President Obama in 2014 and would have delayed the deportation of around 4 million undocumented parents.
The Supreme Court ruled 4-4 on the case, which means there was no majority decision and no legal precedent was set. The case was part of United States v. Texas, which challenged the legality of DACA and DAPA. The 26 states that brought the lawsuit claimed that DACA and DAPA violate the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed". The lower courts did not address this clause, but the Supreme Court directed both sides to address it. The case ultimately resulted in a deadlock, with the lower court's injunction being maintained.
The Supreme Court ruling was a blow to the Obama administration's signature deferred action programs. It made it unlikely that the DAPA program and DACA expansion would be implemented in their current form. However, the outcome may have opened a path for renewed movement on immigration policy changes in Congress.
![Immigration Law and Social Justice [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61kcSR261nL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
