50 F.4th 498
5th Cir.2022Background
- In 2012 DHS issued the three‑page DACA Memorandum creating a program to defer removal for certain aliens brought to the U.S. as children and to make them eligible for work authorization and related benefits.
- States led by Texas sued in 2018 challenging DACA’s lawfulness; the district court held DACA violated the APA (both procedural notice‑and‑comment and substantive/INA) and vacated the memorandum but stayed vacatur for current DACA recipients and barred approval of new applications.
- Fifth Circuit affirms the district court’s procedural and substantive holdings as to the 2012 memorandum, finds Texas has Article III standing (special solicitude + concrete fiscal injuries traceable to DACA), and remands to the district court (not DHS) in light of a later DHS Final Rule (issued Aug. 30, 2022; effective Oct. 31, 2022).
- Court treats DACA as a substantive rule (not a mere non‑enforcement policy) because it established fixed eligibility criteria, a standardized application process, and conferred significant benefits and lawful‑presence effects.
- On the substantive claim the court holds DACA conflicts with the INA and cannot be justified as unfettered prosecutorial discretion; it rejects the agency’s Chevron arguments and vacatur of the memorandum was within the district court’s discretion, although the vacatur was stayed for existing recipients.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Texas: DACA causes concrete fiscal injuries (healthcare, education, social‑services), fairly traceable and redressable; state gets special solicitude | Gov: No cognizable Article III injury; plaintiffs are not direct objects of the program | Texas has standing under special solicitude; fiscal costs are concrete, traceable, and redressable |
| Notice‑and‑comment (procedural APA) | DACA created rights/obligations and fixed criteria so it required notice & comment | DACA is a general policy statement exempt from notice & comment | DACA is a substantive rule (imposes significant effects and channels discretion) and thus violated APA notice‑and‑comment requirements |
| Substantive authority / Chevron | States: DACA is contrary to INA’s comprehensive scheme allocating lawful presence and work authorization | Gov: DACA is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and/or a reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron | Court: DACA conflicts with INA and fails at Chevron step 1; prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited to create lawful‑presence/benefits |
| Remedy / Vacatur & injunction scope; §1252(f)(1) | States: End DACA gradually; district court injunction appropriate | Gov: §1252(f)(1) bars such injunctions; vacatur and nationwide relief improper | §1252(f)(1) does not bar vacatur here; vacatur appropriate given severe legal defects; nationwide injunction not abused; stay preserved for current recipients |
Key Cases Cited
- DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (held DACA rescission reviewable and rescission was arbitrary and capricious)
- Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (DAPA) (Fifth Circuit decision finding DAPA likely violated APA and INA; relied on here for similar reasoning)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (state standing special solicitude and traceability principles)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (scope of agency prosecutorial discretion)
- West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (major‑questions/clear‑statement considerations when agencies assert broad regulatory authority)