Deferred Action for Parents of Americans

On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate's Gang of Eight passed their comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate.[http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/241-305-Blackman_Online.pdf Josh Blackman, The Supreme Court, 2015 Term – Comment: Gridlock], 130 Harv. L. Rev. 241 (2016).{{USBill|113|S|744}}, 113th Cong. (2013). When pressed to take unilateral executive action to limit deportations on Univision in March 2014, President Barack Obama replied "until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do."{{cite news|last1=Shear|first1=Michael D.|last2=Preston|first2=Julia|title=Obama Pushed 'Fullest Extent' of His Powers on Immigration Plan|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/us/white-house-tested-limits-of-powers-before-action-on-immigration.html?_r=1|accessdate=19 November 2016|work=The New York Times|date=29 November 2016|page=A1}}

On June 9, 2014, House Whip Kevin McCarthy announced that House Republicans had enough votes to pass the bill.{{cite web|title=Frontline: Immigration Battle|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/immigration-battle/|publisher=PBS Television broadcast October 20, 2015|accessdate=19 November 2016}} However, the next day House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election, so on June 30, Speaker John Boehner announced that he would not bring the bill to a vote. That same day, President Obama delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden promising to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."{{cite web|title=President Obama delivers remarks on border security and immigration reform from the White House Rose Garden (June 30, 2014)|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoCr1d1ITYk|website=YouTube| date=30 June 2014 |publisher=The White House|accessdate=19 November 2016}}

Over the next eight months the Obama Administration went through sixty iterations of different possible executive actions.[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/how-obama-got-here-113077 Anna Palmer, Seung Min Kim & Carrie Budoff Brown, How Obama Got Here], Politico (Nov. 20, 2014). Finally, on November 20, 2014, President Obama delivered a primetime televised address to the nation announcing DAPA.[http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/c.104.Cox-Rodriguez.225_rnfqiszo.pdf Adam B. Cox & Cristina M. Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law Redux], 125 Yale L.J. 104, 155 (2015).{{cite web|title=In an address to the nation, President Obama lays out the executive action he's taking to fix our nation's broken immigration system, November 20, 2014|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q_Xk66gsRU|website=YouTube| date=20 November 2014 |publisher=The White House|accessdate=19 November 2016}} The Office of Legal Counsel advised that the program was constitutional, finding it was similar to President George H. W. Bush's 1990 "Family Fairness" program.{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf |title=The Dep't of Homeland Sec.'s Auth. to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the U.S. and to Defer Removal of Others, 38 Op. O.L.C. 14 |date=November 9, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141120234312/http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf |archive-date=November 20, 2014 |url-status=dead |access-date=September 8, 2017 }} Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson then released two memorandums directing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make undocumented individuals without criminal histories the lowest priority for removal,[https://web.archive.org/web/20141123032157/http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., to Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Dir., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf't, et al., Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants] (Nov. 20, 2014). and to grant deferred action to undocumented immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident.[https://web.archive.org/web/20141124181906/http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., to León Rodríguez, Dir., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs. et al., Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents] (Nov. 20, 2014).

The President's program, when combined with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would have delayed deportation of slightly less than half of the 11 million undocumented people in the United States.{{cite news|last1=Park|first1=Haeyoun|last2=Parlapiano|first2=Alicia|title=Supreme Court's Decision on Immigration Case Affects Millions of Unauthorized Immigrants|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/22/us/who-is-affected-by-supreme-court-decision-on-immigration.html|accessdate=25 June 2016|work=The New York Times|date=23 June 2016}} More than 10 million people in the United States reside in a household with at least one adult who would have been eligible for DAPA, with two thirds of those adults having lived in the United States for 10 years or more. Over half of the undocumented population eligible for the President's delayed deportation live in California, Texas, and New York.

{{main article|United States v. Texas (2016)}}

On December 3, 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both DAPA and the DACA expansion.{{cite web|last=Zargham|first=Mohammad|title=Obama's immigration action blocked again; Supreme Court only option left|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKCN0SZ04W20151110?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews|date=November 9, 2015|accessdate=November 9, 2015}}{{Cite web|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/executive-action-on-immigration-prompts-texas-to-sue.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article|title = 17 states suing on immigration|date = 3 December 2014|accessdate = 27 February 2015|website = The New York Times|last = David Montgomery and Julia Preston}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203Multi-stateImmigrationOrderLawsuit%281%29.pdf |title=Texas et. al. v. United States et. al.: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief |date=3 December 2014 |accessdate=27 February 2015 |publisher=Office of the Attorney General of Texas |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402104146/https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/20141203Multi-stateImmigrationOrderLawsuit%281%29.pdf |archive-date=2 April 2015 }} On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the DAPA program from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeds.{{Citation | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/us/politics/republicans-say-ruling-aids-bid-in-congress-to-block-obama-on-immigration.html | newspaper = The New York Times | title = After Judge's Ruling Obama Delays Immigration Actions | date = February 18, 2015}}.{{cite journal|last1=Kalhan|first1=Anil|title=Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, and the Rule of Law Basis for Executive Action on Immigration|journal=UCLA Law Review Discourse|date=2015|volume=63|page=58|url=http://www.uclalawreview.org/deferred-action-supervised-enforcement-discretion-rule-law-basis-executive-action-immigration/}}

The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal.{{Citation | url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/democrats-obama-immigration_n_6716666.html | newspaper = The Huffington Post | title = House Democrats Encourage Representatives To Keep Holding Events On Obama Immigration Actions | date = February 19, 2015| last1 = Foley | first1 = Elise }}. On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a three member motions panel with one dissent, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself.Nakamura, David. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/27/obama-administration-wont-seek-emergency-stay-from-supreme-court-on-immigration-injunction/ Obama administration won't seek emergency stay from Supreme Court on immigration injunction], Washington Post, May 27, 2015.{{cite web|last1=Kalhan|first1=Anil|title=Executive Action on Immigration and the Judicial Artifice of "Lawful Presence"|url=http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/06/executive-action-on-immigration-and.html|website=Dorf on Law|date=June 3, 2015}} That ruling came on November 9, 2015, with a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, with one dissent.{{cite web|last=Shear|first=Michael D.|title=Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama's Immigration Plans|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-immigration-plans.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&hp|date=November 9, 2015|accessdate=November 9, 2015}}

The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial.{{cite news|last1=Lind|first1=Dara|title=Obama's immigration executive actions are up to the Supreme Court|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8025691/immigration-lawsuit-obama|accessdate=12 November 2015|work=Vox|date=10 November 2015}} Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to undocumented residents, and that President Obama's order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act "flatly does not permit" deferred action.{{cite news|last1=Ford|first1=Matt|title=A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/|accessdate=12 November 2015|work=The Atlantic|date=10 November 2015}} Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been "no justification" for the circuit court's delay in ruling.

On November 10, 2015, the Justice Department announced it would ask the Supreme Court to reverse.{{cite web|last=Shear|first=Michael D.|title=Obama appeals immigration ruling to Supreme Court|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-obama.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0|date=November 10, 2015|accessdate=November 10, 2015}} Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempted to prolong consideration of the case until the next October term but the Supreme Court only granted him an eight-day extension to file his opposition brief.[http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/texas-gets-a-bit-more-time-on-immigration-reply/ Lyle Denniston, States get a bit more time for immigration reply], SCOTUSblog (Dec. 1, 2015, 5:22 PM). The Justice Department further hastened the case by waiving its right to file a reply brief.[http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/states-want-wider-immigration-review-if-court-takes-case/ Lyle Denniston, States want wider immigration review, if Court takes case], SCOTUSblog (Dec. 29, 2015, 6:37 PM). On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.{{cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|title=Justices to Hear State Challenge on Immigration|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-obama-immigration-actions.html?_r=0|accessdate=20 January 2016|work=The New York Times|date=19 January 2016 |issue=20 January 2016, section A1}} The Court took the unusual step of asking for briefing on the new constitutional question of whether DAPA violates the Take Care Clause.{{cite news|last1=Palazzolo|first1=Joe|title=In Immigration Case, Supreme Court Takes an Interest in 'Take Care' Clause|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/01/19/in-immigration-case-supreme-court-takes-an-interest-in-take-care-clause/|accessdate=20 January 2016|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=19 January 2016}}

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court announced it had deadlocked 4–4 in a decision that read, in its entirety, "The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court."{{cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|last2=Shear|first2=Michael D.|title=Split Court Stifles Obama on Immigration: A 9-Word Ruling Erases a Shield for Millions|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html|accessdate=25 June 2016|work=The New York Times|date=24 June 2016|pages=A1, Column 1}} The ruling set no precedent and simply leaves in place the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the program. Although initially believed that the case could reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial, such hopes were dashed by President Trump's rescission of the DACA memo and the subsequent voluntary dismissal by Plaintiffs in the underlying district court action.State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-254 [D.E. 469], 2017 WL 5476770 (S.D. Tex.) ("Given these memoranda rescinding the DAPA program and phasing out the DACA and Expanded DACA programs, Plaintiffs file this stipulation of voluntary dismissal.")[https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14122946ci.pdf See Stipulation here]

On January 15, 2015, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that about 3.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States are potentially eligible for DAPA, around 766,000 in just five counties: Los Angeles and Orange in California, Harris and Dallas in Texas, and Cook in Illinois.{{cite web|title=MPI Releases Detailed Data Profiles of Unauthorized Immigrants and Estimates of Deferred Action Populations for Top U.S. Counties|url=http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/mpi-releases-detailed-county-profiles-unauthorized-immigrants-and-estimates-deferred-action|publisher=Migration Policy Institute|accessdate=February 20, 2015|date=2015-01-15}}

The President's program, when combined with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would have delayed deportation of slightly less than half of the 11 million people in the United States who are undocumented. More than 10 million people in the United States reside in a household with at least one adult who would have been eligible for DAPA, with two thirds of those adults having lived in the United States for 10 years or more. Over half of undocumented residents eligible for the President's delayed deportation live in California, Texas, and New York.

The program was challenged in federal court by 26 states. Of the 3.6 million undocumented parents eligible for DAPA, 2.2 million reside in states that did not join the lawsuit.

A 2016 study of the impact of DACA on labor market outcomes for immigrants found that if the same effects apply to DAPA as DACA, then DAPA could potentially move over 250,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.{{Cite journal|last=Pope|first=Nolan G.|title=The effects of DACAmentation: The impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on unauthorized immigrants|journal=Journal of Public Economics|volume=143|pages=98–114|doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.08.014|year=2016|url=https://zenodo.org/record/894574}}

If DAPA had been implemented, a person would have been eligible if the person:{{Cite web|url = http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction|title = Executive Actions on Immigration|date = 15 April 2015|publisher = U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services}}

• Had lived in the United States without interruption since January 1, 2010,
• Had been physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014 (the date the program was announced),
• Had been physically present in the United States when applying to the program,
• Had lacked lawful immigration status on November 20, 2014,
• Had, as of November 20, 2014, a child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,
• Had not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and
• Had not "otherwise pose a threat to national security or be an enforcement priority for removal".

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
• DREAM Act
• Keeping Families Together (KFT)
• Family Fairness Program
• Immigration to the United States
• History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States

{{Reflist}}

{{Commons}}

• [https://www.uscis.gov/archive/2014-executive-actions-on-immigration 2014 Executive Actions on Immigration] at USCIS.gov
• [http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-immigration-accountability-executive-action A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224020632/http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-immigration-accountability-executive-action |date=2015-02-24 }}
• [http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf Decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirming preliminary injunction against implementation of executive order]

{{Immigration to the United States}}

Category:2014 establishments in the United States

Category:2014 in American law

Category:2017 disestablishments in the United States

Category:United States immigration law

Category:Parenting in the United States