AILA provides a series of 12 charts comparing President Biden’s accomplishments 100 days after entering office with the comprehensive recommendations AILA presented to the president.View All
AILALink puts an entire immigration law library at your fingertips! Search the AILALink database for all your practice needs—statutes, regs, case law, agency guidance, publications, and more.
AILA Doc. No. 17091933 | Dated June 28, 2019
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to rule on whether DHS's decision to rescind the DACA program is judicially reviewable, as well as whether the decision to rescind the program was lawful. The Court consolidated this case, as well as McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal, together with the case DHS v. Regents of the University of California. Please see AILA Doc. No. 17091102 for further updates on these cases. (Trump v. NAACP, 6/28/19)
The government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment with the Supreme Court. (Trump v. NAACP, 11/5/18)
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must fully restore the DACA program but delayed the order until August 23, 2018, to allow the government to respond and appeal. In the decision, the court stated, “The Court therefore reaffirms its conclusion that DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.” The court also denied the government’s motion to reconsider, stating that “The Court has already once given DHS the opportunity to remedy these deficiencies—either by providing a coherent explanation of its legal opinion or by reissuing its decision for bona fide policy reasons that would preclude judicial review—so it will not do so again.” Additionally, the court states that it does not hold that DHS lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to rescind the DACA program, but rather that “if DHS wishes to rescind the program—or to take any other action, for that matter—it must give a rational explanation for its decision.” (NAACP v. Trump, 8/3/18)
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates extend the 90-day stay for the government to try and terminate DACA again in a legally sound manner, indefinitely. (NAACP v. Trump, 6/27/18)
For more information, including upcoming key dates and other potential developments, please visit the National Immigration Law Center’s DACA Litigation Timeline and CLINIC’s Reminder that Upcoming Court Decisions Could Impact DACA.
On June 22, 2018, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued a new memorandum, in response to the court's request for a more elaborate explanation for rescinding DACA, concurring with and declining to disturb the government's September 5, 2017 memorandum that rescinded the DACA program and purporting to offer further explanation for DHS' decision to rescind DACA.
The district court judge issued an order vacating the decision to rescind DACA, requiring DHS to accept and process both new and renewal DACA applications. The court stayed its order of vacatur for 90 days to allow DHS an opportunity to better explain its rescission decision. (NAACP v. Trump, 4/24/18)
The NAACP filed a lawsuit challenging the rescission of the DACA program, asking the district court to enjoin the rescission of DACA and the use of information obtained in DACA applications for immigration enforcement purposes. (NAACP v. Trump, 9/18/17)
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 17091933.
American Immigration Lawyers Association
1331 G Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Copyright © 1993-2021
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
AILA.org should not be relied upon as the exclusive source for your legal research. Nothing on AILA.org constitutes legal advice, and information on AILA.org is not a substitute for independent legal advice based on a thorough review and analysis of the facts of each individual case, and independent research based on statutory and regulatory authorities, case law, policy guidance, and for procedural issues, federal government websites.