Texas U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen has not delivered a ruling on a hearing that will determine the fate of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The case was brought on by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. His office is representing nine other states that are seeking to get rid of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA), a program which was instated by President Barack Obama in 2012. The program provides limited immigration protection for people who were brought to the states as children illegally by their parents. It's estimated that the program offers limited protection to over 700,000 people. For many who are under the protection of DACA, they have now gone on to become parents and even grandparents.

The nine states seeking to end DACA protections include Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The states all argue that they would like to see the removal of the program because it has resulted in additional costs by funding recipients with different services, including education.

Prior Attempts to Dismantle DACA

In 2017, the Trump administration led a similar campaign to try and dismantle DACA. In this plan, which was announced by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the administration proclaimed it would begin to dismantle DACA. Sessions called the program “unconstitutional” and explained, "The compassionate thing is to end the lawlessness, enforce our laws, and, if Congress chooses to make changes to those laws, to do so through the process set forth by our founders in a way that advances the interest of the nation.”

The Supreme Court later ruled against the administration's efforts to dismantle DACA, calling the plan “arbitrary and capricious.” Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision, explained that the administration had not offered adequate reasoning for wanting to end the program. Justice Roberts was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in his decision, which read in part, "We conclude that the acting secretary did violate ,” adding that the decision to rescind DACA "must be vacated."

In that case, the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of DACA but rather the argument that the Trump Administration brought forward. This latest attempt to dismantle DACA brought on by AG Paxton will be rooted in the legality of the program and whether or not it constitutionally allows undocumented individuals to remain in the states. Paxton and the states being represented by his office argue that DACA was created without going through correct regulatory steps, and in doing so, they claim that Obama went beyond his executive authority.

As expected, Hanen did not come back with a ruling after the 3 1/2 hour hearing concluded. The case is being heard by the same judge who heard a 2015 case that resulted in the rejection of a similar program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which would have extended protections to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

While it is not clear whether Hanen will rule in favor or against keeping DACA intact, Hanen has shown reservations about the program. In 2018, Hanen wrote in a ruling about the program, “Here, the egg has been scrambled. To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”

Several groups have asked Hanen to dismiss the lawsuit. A group of DACA recipients who are represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) argue that Obama did have the authority to create DACA. A lawyer for MALDEF, Nina Perales, explained that DACA is not to blame for recipients receiving benefits; rather it should be other programs and regulations that were created after the fact that give DACA recipients the ability to obtain benefits such as work authorization.

What Does the End of DACA Mean?

The end of DACA could leave more than 700,000 individuals in a state of limbo. Recipients of DACA benefits, often referred to as “dreamers,” receive limited protections and benefits that allow them to stay in the U.S. Many of them were brought here as young children and have no recollection of their native country.

Some DACA recipients are eligible to apply for a work permit, and in some states, dreamers are even eligible for financial aid for school, though they are not eligible for federal financial aid.

The controversy surrounding DACA remains a political one, with many Republicans citing that the program is unjust as it takes away jobs from legal Americans. On the other hand, Democrats have pushed for the sustainability of DACA because they argue it is a humane and compassionate program that has enabled the American economy to grow.