Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealmotioncompliance

appealmotionwilladoption

Related Cases

Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498

Facts

In 2012, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the DACA program, which allowed certain young immigrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully as children to defer removal and receive benefits. Eight states, led by Texas, challenged the program's legality, arguing it violated the APA and INA. The district court found DACA procedurally and substantively unlawful, vacating the DACA memorandum while allowing existing recipients to maintain their status temporarily. The case escalated to the Court of Appeals after the defendants appealed the district court's ruling.

In 2012 the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program was set forth in a three-page memorandum (to which we will refer as the DACA Memorandum or the memorandum).

Issue

Did the states have standing to challenge the DACA program, and was DACA lawful under the APA and INA?

Rule

The court applied the special solicitude standard for state standing under Article III, determining that states can challenge agency actions under the APA if they affect quasi-sovereign interests. The court also evaluated DACA's compliance with procedural requirements of the APA and its alignment with the INA.

The court applied the special solicitude standard for a state's standing under Article III, State of Texas had standing; adoption by DHS, while appeal was pending, of final rule intended to replace DACA's authorizing memorandum did not render appeal moot.

Analysis

The court found that Texas had standing to challenge DACA based on its quasi-sovereign interests and direct financial injuries resulting from the program. It ruled that DACA's implementation violated the APA's notice-and-comment requirements and contravened the INA, as it regulated an area directly addressed by Congress. The court concluded that DACA was an unreasonable interpretation of the INA, thus unlawful under both steps of the Chevron analysis.

The court found that Texas had standing to challenge DACA based on its quasi-sovereign interests and direct financial injuries resulting from the program.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in part, holding that DACA was unlawful and that the district court's vacatur of the DACA memorandum was not an abuse of discretion. The case was remanded with instructions, and a motion for partial stay was granted.

Judgment affirmed in part and remanded with instructions; motion for partial stay granted.

Who won?

The states prevailed in the case as the court upheld their challenge against DACA, ruling that the program was unlawful under the APA and INA.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Fengling Liu, 109 A.D.3d 284, 969 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05295

Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902

Delgado v. McTighe, 91 F.R.D. 76, 32 Fed.R.Serv.2d 852, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1646

Masiello v. Perini Corp., 394 Mass. 842, 477 N.E.2d 1020

Greenfield v. Villager Industries, Inc., 483 F.2d 824, 32 A.L.R. Fed. 83, 17 Fed.R.Serv.2d 577, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,037