United States v. Texas and Supreme Court Immigration Jurisprudence: A Delineation of Acceptable Immigration Policy Unilaterally Created by the Executive Branch

Daniel R. Schutrum-Boward

The United States has become increasingly dependent on immigrants. Immigrants aid in providing U.S. citizens with a myriad of services, making possible crucial aspects of our lives. However, many of these hardworking individuals remain undocumented and, therefore, live with the constant possibility of being detained by immigration authorities, thrown into deportation proceedings and, consequently, separated from family, severed from economic stability, and repatriated to a potentially dangerous country. To prevent this devastating outcome, in 2012, the Department of Homeland Security effectuated by executive order Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). DACA is a policy wherein the government agrees to defer prosecution of certain undocumented children and young adults “for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.” The Executive Branch then issued a memorandum in 2014, which sought to expand eligibility for the DACA program to a larger pool of individuals by creating Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (“DAPA”). Under DAPA, individuals eligible for the program would be permitted to stay in the United States with their children. Twenty-five states brought suit to enjoin the programs, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in November 2015, relying on a Gordian knot of nebulous immigration and administrative jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of the United States, by an equally divided Court, affirmed the injunction.