If you are a DACA recipient with questions about how the ongoing court cases might impact you, please stay tuned, speak with a trusted attorney, and visit Informed Immigrant for additional updates and resources.
"Nothing has changed for current DACA recipients at this time, including those in Texas. Current DACA recipients can continue renewing their protections, for the time being."
As a result of ongoing legal challenges to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, DACA recipients in Texas may soon have their legal work permits canceled. We are waiting for further rulings from the Southern Texas District Court that will determine if and how work authorizations under DACA will be ended for individuals in the state of Texas, which could lead to legal challenges in other states or additional action by the federal government to fully end the program.
In January 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the DACA program, but left in place the stay that allows current DACA recipients to renew their DACA protections, keeping the status quo in place. The Fifth Circuit also ordered that the injunction blocking DACA protections be limited to only the state of Texas, and only to the work authorization component of DACA. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the District Court to determine how the invalidation of DACA work authorizations would be practically implemented in Texas. The District Court judge received briefs from all parties involved in November, and could issue a ruling with directions on implementation at any point.
Until the judge gives further direction, we do not know how DACA work authorizations will end in Texas (e.g. immediately, given an end date, barred from renewing), or how the impact will be limited to only Texas. Once these instructions are issued, however, it is possible that other states could use this decision as justification to launch their own challenges to DACA.
Most importantly, at this time, nothing has changed for current DACA recipients, including those in Texas. Current DACA recipients can continue renewing their protections, for the time being.
“1,000 DACA recipients will be forced out of their jobs every business week for two years if DACA renewals end.”
While the Fifth Circuit’s decision should not impact protections for DACA recipients outside of Texas, there is a very real chance that other states and the Trump administration could begin taking steps to severely limit or even eliminate DACA protections in the coming years. Dreamers already face significantly increased threats of arrest and deportation, despite the protections DACA should provide.
Judge Hanen’s decision, upheld by the Fifth Circuit, could be cited by other states trying to establish standing to challenge the DACA policy. These legal challenges could result in DACA protectings being invalidated in other states, or could possibly result in a nationwide legal decision against DACA.
The Trump administration could also use these decisions as justifications to further restrict existing DACA protections. For example, the administration could begin a regulatory process to end the work authorization component of DACA, citing the Fifth Circuit’s finding that these are separate from the deportation protections. This would destroy a critical component of DACA with disastrous consequences for the U.S. workforce and economy (described in more detail below).
The administration’s aggressive enforcement efforts have shown that even existing DACA protections are not guaranteed. There have been numerous news reports of individuals being arrested and detained despite holding valid DACA permits. The Department of Homeland Security has issued stark warnings to DACA recipients, stating that “DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country” and that DACA recipients are equally at risk of arrest and removal, urging them to “self-deport” from the country they have called home for most of their lives.
The Trump administration has also launched a wave of legal attacks on states that allow DACA recipients to qualify for in-state tuition rates to attend colleges or universities in the states where they live. Some states are defending their policies in courts, while others have agreed to the pressure to end their policies.
“President Trump is in a unique position to protect DACA and provide Dreamers a pathway to citizenship."
In a recent interview with the New York Times, President Trump reiterated that he wants to provide a solution for Dreamers (undocumented immigrants who came at a very young age) to stay in the U.S., noting, “Yes, they should feel safe, but I’d like to be able to do something.” He has a unique opportunity to do just that.
President Trump is in a unique position to protect DACA and provide Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. First, he can protect Dreamers by keeping the DACA program in place. The Fifth Circuit decision allows his administration to continue administering DACA. Meanwhile, President Trump can encourage leaders in states like Texas and others to drop further legal challenges to the program.
Second, President Trump should work with both parties to pursue bipartisan legislation to provide permanent protections and opportunities for Dreamers. Such legislation could be narrowly targeted to specifically provide Dreamers the permanent protections that are long overdue, and would also benefit millions of Americans who live alongside Dreamers as spouses, children, neighbors, co-workers, and friends.
“DACA litigation has created overwhelming uncertainty for recipients and prevents the government from processing requests from new applicants."
For more than half a decade, DACA has faced protracted litigation that has created overwhelming uncertainty for current recipients, and has prevented the government from processing requests from new applicants.
The legal odyssey began in 2017 when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was ending the DACA policy. Several lawsuits were filed to keep DACA in place, and federal judges decided in their favor, determining that the Trump administration had violated federal procedure by ending DACA without a formal process. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review the cases; in 2020, the Court issued a 5-4 decision affirming that the Trump administration had not followed the proper procedures. This decision kept DACA in place, though the Court deliberately said nothing about the underlying legality of the policy itself.
Meanwhile, a separate legal challenge was launched by a coalition of Republican attorneys general. They sued the U.S. government, arguing that the DACA policy is unlawful and directly harms their states. The case came before Judge Hanen in the Southern Texas District Court, and in 2021 he sided with the states. Judge Hanen asserted that DACA was illegal because the Obama administration had skirted the formal rulemaking process, and that DACA’s protections went beyond the government’s authority.
Judge Hanen’s 2021 decision prohibited the government from processing new applications, but it allowed current DACA recipients to retain their protections and to file for renewals while the Biden administration went through a new formal rulemaking process to bolster the program.
The Biden administration appealed Judge Hanen’s decision; in 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Hanen’s determination that the original DACA policy was unlawful, but sent the case back to Judge Hanen to consider the legality of the new formal DACA rule issued by the Biden administration. Despite this new rulemaking process, Judge Hanen ruled again that DACA is illegal, and the Fifth Circuit again upheld his decision, while allowing renewals to continue. We are currently waiting to see the next steps in the fight to protect DACA.
The Fifth Circuit determined that the work authorization protections under DACA could be addressed separately from the deportation protections, but limited this decision to the state of Texas, and sent the case back to Judge Hanen to determine how this would happen in practice; Judge Hanen received briefings in November 2025, and could issue an order implementing his ruling in Texas at any time.
With the case remanded back to the District Court, Judge Hanen asks all parties to weigh in on a number of questions related to how DACA work authorization can be severed from deportation protection, and how to handle the limitation of the ruling to Texas only.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against the DACA program, but allowing for renewals to continue.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in the DACA case.
Seven amici curiae briefs are filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, detailing the devastating impacts if the DACA policy is ended.
An appeal is filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Texas v. United States case, requesting review of Judge Hanen’s recent ruling.
Judge Hanen issues his ruling in the case of Texas v. United States, ruling that DACA is illegal despite the Biden administration’s rulemaking efforts, but allowing renewals to continue for the time being.
Judge Hanen hears oral arguments in the case of Texas v. United States, focusing on the newly finalized DACA rule. A decision in the case is expected to follow in the coming months.
The new DACA rule goes into effect, an attempt by the Biden administration to remedy the procedural errors to which Judge Hanen had previously objected.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas upholds Judge Hanen’s determination that the 2012 DACA memorandum is unlawful, but remands the case back to Judge Hanen to determine the legality of the newly finalized DACA rule.
Oral argument takes place at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Texas v. United States case.
DHS proposes a new DACA rule for public comment. The rule is in part an attempt to answer claims that DACA was not properly implemented, by undergoing a formal rulemaking process with public notice and comment. The rule makes very little practical change to DACA.
Judge Hanen issues his decision in the case of Texas v. United States, declaring that DACA is unlawful because of procedural errors made in its implementation. Noting the reliance interest of current DACA recipients, Hanen temporarily stays the injunction “as to individuals who obtained DACA on or before July 16, 2021,” which in practice permits DACA renewals. He holds that DACA is inconsistent with statutory immigration law set forth under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge Hanen hears oral arguments in Texas v. United States, the lawsuit challenging DACA's legality.
New York District Court for the Eastern District of New York orders that DACA be fully reinstated in the Batalla Vidal case, ordering DHS to continue accepting new applications and renewals.
The Supreme Court issues a 5-4 decision, finding that the Trump administration’s termination of DACA was (1) judicially reviewable and (2) done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision keeps DACA in place.
The Supreme Court grants review of three petitions related to the Trump administration’s attempts to end DACA: Regents, Batalla Vidal, and NAACP.
A three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit upholds the preliminary injunction issued in Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security that kept DACA renewals going. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to prevail on their claim that the Trump administration’s termination of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore unlawful.
The Trump administration requests a writ of certiorari for the second time in the case of Regents of the University of California, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, and for the first time in the cases of Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and NAACP v. Trump, asking the Supreme Court to take up the cases before decisions are issued in the related appeals cases.
At the end of their ninety-day deadline, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia orders DHS to revive DACA. The court determined that the ending of DACA was “arbitrary” and “capricious.” The Trump administration is given twenty days to comply.
Texas v. United States, a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of DACA, is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, six years after DACA was first put in place. The case is remanded to Judge Andrew Hanen.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia orders DHS to continue processing DACA requests and renewals, giving DHS ninety days to better explain the legal decision to rescind DACA. The cases involved are NAACP v. Trump, et al., and Trustees of Princeton, et al. v. United States of America, et al.
The Supreme Court denies the Trump administration’s request for a writ of certiorari in Regents of the University of California, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issues an injunction against the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA, blocking the repeal. The court rules that the Trump administration’s attempt to repeal the initiative was “arbitrary and capricious,” a decision which applies in the cases of Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump.
The Trump administration files a petition for a writ of certiorari, requesting the Supreme Court hear a direct appeal of the Regents of the University of California, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California issues a preliminary injunction to prevent the Trump administration from ending DACA in the case of Regents of the University of California, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security. The injunction orders the federal government to continue processing DACA renewal requests.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces the Trump Administration’s decision to end DACA.
Texas’ Attorney General Ken Paxton threatens to file a lawsuit against the federal government if the DACA policy is not rescinded by September 5th, 2017.
“DACA has been a transformative policy, keeping families together and helping young people build their lives and careers in the country they have known as home.”
The DACA policy was implemented in 2012 by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The Obama administration intended the policy to provide temporary protections for undocumented children while Congress worked to create a pathway to permanent legal status. However, Congress has failed to pass any meaningful legislation for Dreamers in the 11 years since DACA was established.
In that time, DACA has been a transformative policy. With DACA, the overwhelming majority of recipients has graduated high school, and nearly half have attained some college education. Most DACA recipients are working: more than three-quarters of DACA recipients participate in the labor force, contributing almost $14 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Some 300,000 DACA recipients work in industries with labor shortages, including healthcare, business services, and education. About a third are married, and more than a third have at least one child at home. One million U.S. citizens live in households with a DACA recipient.
Unfortunately, DACA’s eligibility requirements have not been updated since the policy was announced. DACA applicants must have been in the U.S. since 2007, meaning individuals who could qualify today could be no younger than 16. And even if applicants can meet these requirements, the legal challenges have prevented the government from processing new applications. All told, about 2 million Dreamers currently living in the U.S. are not protected by DACA.
This includes as many as 400,000 individuals who would be eligible to receive DACA status, but cannot have their application processed because of Judge Hanen’s injunction, according to FWD.us estimates. In fact, nearly all undocumented high school students graduating this year, and in the years to come, will be ineligible for DACA.
“Only Congress can act to create a pathway to permanent status and citizenship for Dreamers.”
DACA has kept families together and helped young people build their lives and careers in the country they have known as home. However, the future of this successful and crucial program is more uncertain than ever; there is a very real chance that DACA protections could begin facing elimination very soon.
Allowing DACA to end would be devastating for American communities and the economy. Altogether, the costs of wasted investments, foregone economic contributions, and squandered potential total nearly one trillion dollars, including one million U.S. citizen family members impacted, more than $150 billion in lost revenue for state and local governments, and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic contributions.
If DACA renewals are ended, an estimated 1,000 DACA recipients would be forced out of their jobs every week for the next two years. Ultimately, more than 500,000 current DACA recipients would be stripped of their ability to work legally and be exposed to the threat of deportation.
President Trump should continue to enact the DACA policy as president and not support the litigation against it. Ultimately, however, only Congress can act to create a pathway to permanent status and citizenship for Dreamers. As the future of DACA hangs in jeopardy, President Trump should work with Members of Congress on narrow and targeted legislation to provide a long-overdue pathway to citizenship to Dreamers.
We need your help to move America forward. Learn what you can do.
