The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
MALDEF Chooses Not To Seek Cert in DACA Case, But The Injunction Will Be Limited To Texas
"DACA and work authorization should be available to those renewing and those newly applying for DACA in the 49 states other than Texas"
Nearly thirteen years after it was announced, DACA will come to an end--in Texas. In March 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that DACA was unlawful, but the ruling was limited to the only state found to have standing: Texas. The deadline for MALDEF and other groups to file a cert petition and come and gone. The organization announced that they did not seek cert, in an effort to limit any ruling to Texas and avoid a national ruling.
"Yesterday was the extended deadline for any party to file with the United States Supreme Court seeking discretionary review of the Fifth Circuit's January 17 decision in Texas v. United States, the longstanding Texas-driven challenge to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. None of the parties – the state of Texas and other plaintiff states, the United States, the intervenor state of New Jersey, and the intervenor DACA recipients, who have been represented by MALDEF throughout the case – filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review. Thus, the Fifth Circuit decision of January 17 is now final.
"As a reminder, that decision held that DACA's protection from removal or deportation is a lawful exercise of presidential discretion, and therefore may be granted in response to new and renewal applications throughout the entire country. The Fifth Circuit panel also concluded — erroneously in MALDEF's view — that work authorization granted through the DACA process is not permissible; however, the court limited the implementation of that decision solely to the state of Texas. The result is that, following implementation of the Fifth Circuit decision, DACA and work authorization should be available to those renewing and those newly applying for DACA in the 49 states other than Texas.
"The district court in the Texas case will initially determine how to implement the Fifth Circuit decision. That determination should begin soon through a process of consultation and debate among all the parties before the district court. With respect to the issue of work authorization for DACA holders residing in Texas, MALDEF will be advocating for an extended period of implementation that is respectful, to the maximum extent possible, of the important reliance interests identified by the Supreme Court in its 2020 decision rejecting the first Trump administration's rescission of DACA. In any event, the implementation is likely to be phased in over a significant period of time. Thus, no DACA holder in Texas should be in danger of losing work authorization imminently."
Contrary to what some critics may think, the Fifth Circuit has been trending towards limiting relief to plaintiff states. Other circuits should take note.
President Trump has shown no interest in terminating DACA, so this policy likely will remain in effect in 49 states.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump never did want to end DACA, he just wanted Congress to man up and pass a statute to make it actually legal.
Trump never did want to end DACA,
I think you are making excuses again. "He didn't mean it," etc.
Why did he try to rescind DACA last time around? And in light of that, how can Blackman say, "Trump has shown no interest in terminating DACA," when he manifestly tried to terminate it?
If I shoot at you and miss, it would be insane for someone to say I had shown no interest in shooting you.
What, no national injunction? But I thought those were necessary and sacred? I just heard people insisting that the other day.
Oh that's right, those are only legitimate and justified to benefit left wing causes. This obviously doesn't qualify.
Heads you win. Tails I lose.
I think the take from this is that prevailing parties don't get to appeal to the Sup Ct; losing parties have the *option* to seek cert. If there is a strategic advantage to the losing party to not seek cert; it won't be sought.
As far as this case goes; with the writing on the wall that DACA people will lose work authorization in Texas at some point here in the near future, then I expect those DACA workers to leave Texas and seek employment wherever they can legally find it. Calling this a win for Texas seems a little short sighted. They are going to lose talent - and since many if not a majority of DACA recipients came as children to the US and spent all of their life here and were educated here...it's just an own goal of kicking out what are basically life long tax paying productive Texans.
So congrats Texas?
If we constrain ourselves to making just a purely financial evaluation in determining whether this was a win or a loss, then this was a loss.
However, I suspect we can find other metrics to evaluate this to see if someone won or lost.
We just need to put our minds to it.
Perhaps there are some metrics that aren't purely financial, but there probably aren't many that are non-financial.
It's usually the left that gets all swept up in that emotional non-financial stuff. The GOP is (or was) the party of business and money. That's where their rubber always hit the road. Except for the likes of Ann Coulter, who has criticized immigration from peasant cultures to the US for decades. So, maybe one metric that isn't purely financial is having a less peasanty cultural influence in Texas?
Besides Republicans' making non-financial arguments, it's also ironic that Democrats are the ones making the financial argument here!
The truth of the matter is that parties are not monolithic and they are not static. There are reasons why both parties are making the arguments they do in DACA specifically and with immigration broadly.
Financial arguments may have worked when the Republican Party was the party of George W Bush, but they do not work now. The people that would have been receptive to it are either not in a position to do anything anymore, or they joined the Democratic Party as Never Trumpers.
"lose talent" "life long tax paying productive Texans."
You don't know a thing about the number or skills of the DACA people in Texas.
Maybe they all wait on tables or are on welfare. The idea that all illegals are highly skilled and irreplaceable is just open borders propaganda.
Is Texas running short of people?
Even if it is only the slaughterhouses and harvest fields that are chock full of DACA recipients, there will be an effect.
Whether Texas is running short of people or not, whatever positions the DACA recipients vacate will probably not be quickly replaced by purebred Texas natives. We'll have a real world experiment, followed probably by a lot of fact twisting and exemptions in order to keep positions filled and labor costs low.
"lot of fact twisting and exemptions in order to keep positions filled and labor costs low"
Looks like around 90,000 DACA people in Texas. According to the Texas Workforce Commission 14,898,100 people were employed in 2023. So a little over 1/2 of 1 percent.
labor costs are not going to be affected even if they all leave
I suppose that is great news for Texas. Texas can just tell those measly 90k to not let the door hit them on the way out.
Then Texas will be able to focus on non-DACA illegal workers in Texas. If there is not many of those workers either, then it shouldn't take much effort to get rid of them too.
If the non-DACA illegal workforce in Texas is also a trivial percentage of the total, it's a little puzzling why any of this was such a big issue in the first place. But at least however many there are will be gone, and Texas can celebrate the accomplishment.
Kagan spent a fair amount of time questioning the SG on this exact scenario in the nationwide injunction case. Kagan's position was that if one side knows it is going to lose consistently, but would rather drag out the process and act piecemeal, they should simply not appeal when they lose. Until they win somewhere and the other side appeals, there's no cross-pressure to appeal up to SCOTUS. She literally laid out the strategy and said absent a nationwide injunction, this works.
So MadDog's point is exactly wrong. One of the reasons why nationwide injunctions are a good thing in some cases is exactly because they can be gamed by the side whose case is a legal loser. A nationwide injunction stops this strategy. If you think it's bad that MALDEF is gaming the system, then you should have preferred that the lower courts employed nationwide injunctions and forced the issue to the Supreme Court.
It's the same with venue shopping generally. The reason we should oppose venue shopping is precisely because it works.
You didn't understand my point. Which was not a legal one or about the merits.
I was commenting that people's approval (or disapproval) of national injunctions is very much dependent on the politics of the issue being enjoined. With much of the commentariat (political and legal) being left of center, it exposes a lot of hackery. Disclaimer: Blackman is also a hack with his special pleadings.
I totally get why MALDEF would choose not to appeal this, as it's likely to lose at the Supreme Court. Sound legal strategy.
I was commenting how there was not a national injunction issued originally at the district court level. This is how it's mostly supposed to work.
Unsurprisingly, you have offered the most simplistic and stupid "analysis" possible.
Nationwide injunctions by individual District court judges have made life difficult for both Trump and for Democratic presidents over the past decade. They are not confined to one administration or the other, and nor have they been put in place by only liberal or conservative federal judges.
There are good reasons to be concerned about the proliferation of universal injunctions, especially when enacted at the District court level. There are 94 federal court districts, with hundreds of judges. Allowing a single judge to effectively halt a President's policy nationwide is certainly problematic. It leaves open the possibility that a single unelected judge can shape national policy, even if judges in all other 93 federal districts would have ruled the other way.
On the other hand, restricting judgments only to their parties or jurisdictions means that we effectively have different federal rules in different parts of the country, which can also be a problem, especially when it comes to policies that are supposed to be universal. Look at the birthright citizenship case, for example, Do we really want the type of uncertainty and chaos that would result if the children born in half of US states are considered citizens, while those born in the other half of the states are not?
This is why we need some sort of system that reins in the excessive number of universal injunctions that we have seen over the last decade or so, while also permitting the courts to ensure a certain amount of reliance and regularity in the system. And this is why even Neil Gorsuch, probably the justice who had been the most critical of nationwide injunctions in the past few years, seemed to pull back on his criticism a bit in last week's oral arguments over the issue.
A real problem here is that the Trump administration, acting with its typical level of competence, put a case in front of the Supreme Court that was probably the worst possible vehicle for deciding the issue of nationwide injunctions. The birthright citizenship executive order is so clearly unconstitutional that even critics of nationwide injunctions like Gorsuch backed off a bit because they don't want the sort of chaos I described above, and because they don't like the idea of an overweening executive making up unconstitutional policy as it goes along.
But you carry on with the fantasy that nationwide injunctions are just "to benefit left wing causes." All it demonstrates is your hidebound ignorance or stupidity on the matter.
Actually, I was commenting on the fact that most commentaries (legal and political) only seem to recognize national injunctions as legitimate for left wing causes. That's why I said "legitimate and justified" in my original.
It's like how the people outraged at aliens being deported for their speech are mostly silent about the Maine legislator being suspended from voting for her speech. I say mostly silent, because some actually heartily approve what has happened to Laurel Libby. Partisan legal hackery is exhausting. Which is why I find Blackman (and to a lesser extent Somin) exhausting.
But thanks for burning all those pixels.
1) Circuit splits are common and not to be feared in the least. When they become an issue, that is one of the reasons for SCOTUS to grant cert and resolve the issue. If we fear circuit splits, then we should get rid of circuit courts and have mini-Supreme Courts throughout the country.
2) Your idea that nationwide injunctions should issue in cases of "clear" entitlement for relief would do nothing but cause a district court judge to declare that the issue in front of him is similarly clear.
The birthright citizenship EO is very likely unconstitutional. But I do believe that there are legitimate arguments on the administration's side that are consistent with current precedent. If we are going to disfavor national injunctions and only give relief to the particular plaintiffs, then it makes no sense to give other potential plaintiffs relief simply because the judge (or commentators) think the issue is particularly "clear." That just makes it an easier case to give relief to the plaintiff, not a reason to expand the scope of the ruling.
What practical effect will the end of work authorization have on the availability/cost/quality of labor in Texas?
>In March 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that DACA was unlawful, but the ruling was limited to the only state found to have standing:
Interesting how this works.
When its something a judge doesn't like that is found unlawful - nationwide injunction.
When its something a judge likes - only the parties involved.
the Fifth Circuit