DACA Under Trump: Past Actions, Court Rulings, and Future Risks

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established in 2012 by the Obama administration, offers certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit. This article examines the trajectory of DACA during the Trump presidency, analyzing key administrative actions, judicial interventions, and the ongoing uncertainties surrounding its future. Understanding these developments requires a clear grasp of the program’s origins and the legal challenges it has consistently faced, acting as a shifting landscape for its beneficiaries.

Upon taking office in January 2017, the Trump administration signaled an intent to end DACA, consistent with its broader immigration enforcement agenda. This intention quickly translated into concrete policy changes and legal maneuvering, creating a climate of apprehension for nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, often referred to as “Dreamers.” The administration’s actions were framed as an effort to restore what it viewed as the proper application of immigration law and to assert executive authority in this domain.

Announcement of DACA Rescission

On September 5, 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the rescission of the DACA program. This announcement ended new DACA applications and set a six-month wind-down period for existing beneficiaries. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that effective March 5, 2018, it would no longer accept DACA renewal applications. However, this implementation was immediately met with legal challenges. The administration argued that DACA was an unlawful exercise of executive authority, citing a 2016 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, which had similar legal underpinnings. The argument posited that DACA fell outside the executive branch’s statutory authority and could only be authorized by Congress. This legal assertion became a central pillar of the administration’s rationale for termination.

Limited Permit for Renewals

Despite the stated intention to end DACA, subsequent court orders forced the administration to partially reverse course. While no new applications for DACA were accepted, DHS was compelled to continue processing renewal applications for individuals who had previously held DACA status. This created a bifurcated system where long-term beneficiaries could maintain their status, albeit with persistent legal uncertainty, while new applicants remained ineligible. This partial continuation was not a policy choice by the administration but a direct consequence of judicial intervention, highlighting the inherent tension between executive action and judicial oversight in immigration policy. It was a holding pattern, not a resolution.

In exploring the complexities surrounding DACA under the Trump administration, it is essential to consider the broader implications for immigrants in the United States. A related article that discusses opportunities for immigrants can be found here: Best Online Business Ideas for Immigrants in the USA. This resource highlights low-cost and scalable business ideas that can empower immigrants, showcasing how they can navigate the challenges posed by immigration policies while pursuing entrepreneurial ventures.

Judicial Interventions and Rulings

The Trump administration’s attempts to terminate DACA were consistently met with legal challenges in federal courts across the country. These challenges, primarily filed by states, universities, and DACA beneficiaries themselves, argued that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and was motivated by discriminatory intent. The ensuing legal battles became a central feature of DACA’s existence during this period, with the program’s fate swinging like a pendulum with each new court decision.

District Court Injunctions

Shortly after the September 2017 rescission announcement, several federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the administration’s plan to end DACA. Notable examples include the Northern District of California (Regents of the University of California v. DHS) and the Eastern District of New York (NAACP v. Trump). These injunctions generally found that the rescission was likely unlawful because the government failed to provide adequate justification for its decision, a requirement under the APA. The courts often criticized the administration for not considering the reliance interests of DACA recipients and for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for the change in policy. These initial judicial victories provided a temporary reprieve for DACA recipients, allowing renewal applications to continue. However, these were not final rulings, but rather temporary pauses, leaving DACA in a state of suspended animation.

Appeals Court Decisions

The district court injunctions were subsequently appealed to various circuit courts. In 2018 and 2019, multiple circuit courts, including the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, largely upheld the district courts’ injunctions. These appellate decisions reinforced the view that the administration’s rescission was likely procedurally flawed under the APA. The appeals courts often pointed to the government’s shifting justifications for ending DACA and its failure to adequately address the reliance interests of DACA recipients who had built lives in the U.S. based on the program’s protections. These victories at the appellate level paved the way for the ultimate review by the Supreme Court, solidifying the legal arguments against the rescission. The legal landscape became increasingly complex, a maze of injunctions and appeals, with DACA recipients navigating its twists and turns.

Supreme Court Ruling (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California)

In June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark 5-4 decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. The Court ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the executive branch has broad authority over immigration matters, it must still provide a reasoned explanation for its actions. The Court did not rule on the legality of DACA itself, nor did it state that the government could never end DACA. Instead, it criticized the manner in which the rescission was carried out, specifically citing the administration’s failure to address crucial factors such as the significant reliance interests of DACA recipients and the disruption that terminating the program would cause. This decision was a significant victory for DACA recipients, largely preventing the immediate termination of the program. However, it was a procedural victory, not a substantive one. The door remained open for the administration to attempt rescission again, provided it followed proper administrative procedures. The Supreme Court’s ruling, while a relief, was more a navigational correction than a final destination.

Renewed Attempts at Termination and Further Legal Challenges

Following the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling, the Trump administration made another attempt to terminate DACA, aiming to address the procedural flaws highlighted by the Court. This renewed effort faced immediate resistance, both from within the judiciary and from advocates for DACA recipients. The cycle of executive action and judicial review thus continued, keeping the program in a state of perpetual limbo.

Chad Wolf Memo

In July 2020, after the Supreme Court’s decision, then-Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf issued a memorandum that largely halted new DACA applications, limited renewals to one year instead of two, and restricted travel permits (advance parole). This memo was an attempt to comply with the Supreme Court’s procedural requirements while still moving towards DACA’s eventual termination. The administration argued that this revised approach was a legitimate exercise of executive discretion pending a comprehensive review of the program. However, this action again drew immediate legal challenges, as opponents argued that Wolf’s appointment as Acting Secretary was unlawful and therefore his memo lacked legal authority.

Texas v. United States and Judge Hanen’s Ruling

A significant challenge to DACA resurfaced in the case of Texas v. United States, initiated by a coalition of states led by Texas. These states argued that D DACA itself was an unlawful program, exceeding presidential authority from its inception in 2012. In July 2021, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in the Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiff states, declaring DACA unlawful. Judge Hanen found that DACA was created in violation of the APA and infringed on Congress’s legislative authority over immigration. His ruling permanently enjoined the government from approving new DACA applications, though he allowed current DACA recipients to continue renewing their protections. This ruling created a new wave (a rising tide) of uncertainty, distinguishing between existing beneficiaries and prospective applicants. It represented a fundamental shift from previous rulings, which focused on the procedure of termination, to a ruling on DACA’s legality.

Impact on DACA Recipients

The tumultuous period under the Trump administration placed significant strain on DACA recipients. The constant legal battles and shifting policy landscape created an environment of chronic uncertainty, impacting every aspect of their lives, from employment and education to mental health and family planning. The legal challenges acted as a storm, leaving individuals adrift.

Uncertainty and Anxiety

The primary impact on DACA recipients was pervasive uncertainty and anxiety. With each administrative action or court ruling, their future in the United States hung in the balance. This state of limbo hindered their ability to make long-term plans, pursue higher education without fear of interruption, or establish stable careers. The psychological toll of living with the constant threat of deportation, even for individuals who had lived most of their lives in the U.S., was significant. Many reported increased stress, fear, and difficulty in concentrating on daily tasks, a heavy shadow cast over their lives.

Employment and Educational Instability

The threat of DACA’s termination directly affected recipients’ employment and educational opportunities. Businesses became hesitant to hire individuals whose work authorization could be revoked at any moment, and educational institutions faced questions regarding the enrollment status of DACA students. While DACA allowed access to work permits, the ongoing legal disputes undermined the stability these permits were intended to provide. The ability to plan for a career or invest in higher education became a high-stakes gamble, forcing many into a reactive rather than proactive stance regarding their professional and academic futures. The foundations they sought to build were constantly rattling.

Delayed Reform and Political Stalemate

The DACA saga under Trump also highlighted the broader failure of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Despite bipartisan support for some form of protection for “Dreamers,” legislative efforts consistently stalled. The legal battles over DACA became a proxy for this larger political stalemate, with both sides using the program as a bargaining chip or a symbol of wider immigration debates. The judiciary was repeatedly tasked with resolving issues that many argued were properly within the legislative domain, underscoring the deep divisions within the political system. DACA recipients found themselves caught in the gears of a much larger political machine.

The discussion surrounding DACA under Trump’s administration has been complex, marked by significant court rulings and ongoing debates about its future. For those interested in understanding the broader implications of immigration policies, an insightful article can be found that outlines the critical updates immigrants should be aware of as we approach 2026. This resource provides valuable context and information that complements the analysis of DACA’s past actions and future risks. You can read more about it in this comprehensive article.

Future Risks and Outlook

The legal status of DACA remains precarious. While the Biden administration has sought to preserve and fortify the program, the underlying legal challenges, particularly those originating from Texas and other states, continue to pose a significant threat. The future of DACA is largely dependent on ongoing judicial review and the possibility of congressional action.

Ongoing Litigation

The Texas v. United States case continues its journey through the appellate courts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in July 2022 and upheld Judge Hanen’s ruling that DACA is unlawful, remanding the case back to him to consider a new DACA rule proposed by the Biden administration. This means the future of DACA hinges significantly on how the federal courts ultimately decide on the program’s legality. Should the Supreme Court ultimately concur with Judge Hanen’s finding that DACA was illegally created, the program could face immediate and permanent termination without congressional intervention. This legal pathway is a treacherous one, with a single wrong turn potentially undoing years of protection.

Congressional Action

Many advocates and policymakers believe that only congressional action can provide a permanent solution for DACA recipients. Numerous legislative proposals, often referred to as “Dream Acts,” have been introduced over the years to create a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship for eligible undocumented young people. However, these efforts have consistently failed to garner sufficient bipartisan support to pass both chambers of Congress. The political polarization surrounding immigration issues makes comprehensive reform a daunting task, leaving DACA recipients in a vulnerable position. Without a legislative anchor, they remain tied to the shifting sands of judicial interpretation and executive policy.

Potential for New Administrative Action

While the Biden administration has finalized a rule to codify DACA into federal regulation, aiming to address the APA concerns raised in previous rulings, this regulation is still subject to legal challenge, particularly in the ongoing Texas v. United States case. Even if this new regulation withstands judicial scrutiny, future administrations could still attempt to terminate or significantly alter the program, albeit with the necessity of following proper administrative procedures. The long-term stability of DACA ultimately relies on a durable legal framework, whether forged through legislation or robust executive action that stands firm against judicial review. The regulatory landscape is another battlefield, constantly shifting.

In conclusion, DACA under the Trump administration was a period of intense legal challenge and profound uncertainty. While judicial interventions largely prevented the immediate termination of the program, they also highlighted the inherent vulnerabilities of an executive-created policy. The continuous struggle, spanning administrative actions, court rulings, and renewed attempts at termination, left DACA recipients in a state of protracted limbo. The future remains uncertain, contingent upon ongoing legal battles and the elusive prospect of congressional action, with the lives of hundreds of thousands hanging in the balance, waiting for the legal dust to settle.