RELEASE: CAP Analysis Explores Implications to Pending Litigation of Recent 5th Circuit Court Decision in Case that Challenges the Implementation of 2012 DACA Program in Mississippi
To offer further insights into this case, as well as to preview the 5th Circuit Court’s April 17 hearing on the emergency stay around the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, actions, authors Marshall Fitz and Stephen Legomsky will hold a press call on Thursday, April 16, at 12:30 p.m. ET. Full details are below this press release.
Washington, D.C. — The Center for American Progress published today analysis that explores the implications of the recent 5th Circuit Court decision in the case that challenged the implementation of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, in Mississippi. In this issue brief, experts determine that the federal appeals court dismissal has important, positive implications for the government’s defense of the pending challenges to the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration policies.
On April 7, the 5th Circuit held in Crane v. Johnson that neither agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or USCIS, nor the state of Mississippi had standing to challenge the DACA program. Most directly, the Crane ruling ensures that DACA, which has already benefited 640,000 long-term residents brought here as children, will remain in effect. The ruling means the government can continue to focus its limited enforcement resources on such priorities as national security, public safety, and border security. It also ensures that hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients can continue to work lawfully and help grow our economy without living under constant threat of deportation.
“The ruling has important implications for the lawsuit filed in December by Texas and other states seeking to block the more recent deferred action memoranda issued by the DHS. These DHS immigration policies build on the 2012 DACA policy to make millions of additional low-priority undocumented immigrants eligible to seek temporary, albeit revocable, protection from deportation,” said Marshall Fitz, CAP Vice President of Immigration Policy. “Like DACA, these policies will strengthen national and state economies, while enhancing public safety by prioritizing limited enforcement resources to focus on serious criminals rather than hardworking families.”
The authors of the brief explain that the 5th Circuit’s decision in Crane—a unanimous ruling by two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee—exposes several of the flaws in U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling on the preliminary injunction, vindicates the DHS deferred action programs, and should weigh heavily when the same court decides the pending appeal in the Texas case.
“Judge Hanen’s decision in Texas v. Johnson is deeply flawed. The 5th Circuit in Crane v. Napolitano has further exposed those flaws, making it extremely difficult for another panel of that court to uphold Judge Hanen’s conclusions on either standing or on the Administrative Procedure Act,” said Stephen Legomsky, John S. Lehmann University Professor at the Washington University School of Law and former chief counsel of USCIS in the Department of Homeland Security.
PRESS CALL DETAILS
Stephen Legomsky, John S. Lehmann University Professor at the Washington University School of Law and former Chief Counsel of USCIS in the Department of Homeland Security
Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
Marshall Fitz, Vice President of Immigration Policy, Center for American Progress
Thursday, April 16, 2015
12:30 p.m. ET
Conference title: Previewing 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Hearing on Deferred Action
Conference ID: 3023709
Dial-in number: 800.575.5790
- The High Costs of Delaying Executive Action on Immigration by Silva Mathema
- 5 Facts You Need to Know About Legal Challenges to Executive Action on Immigration by Silva Mathema and Philip E. Wolgin
- What Would It Cost to Deport All 5 Million Beneficiaries of Executive Action on Immigration? by Philip E. Wolgin
- Administrative Action on Immigration Reform: The Fiscal Benefits of Temporary Work Permits by Patrick Oakford
For more information, please contact Tanya S. Arditi at email@example.com or 202.741.6258.