Fifth Circuit: 2012 DACA Program Upheld Because Plaintiffs Lack Standing | Practical Law

Fifth Circuit: 2012 DACA Program Upheld Because Plaintiffs Lack Standing | Practical Law

In Crane v. Johnson, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the state of Mississippi and a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and deportation officers all lacked standing to challenge the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of DACA could not go forward because none of the plaintiffs could point to a concrete and particularized injury they suffered as a result of DACA's implementation.

Fifth Circuit: 2012 DACA Program Upheld Because Plaintiffs Lack Standing

Practical Law Legal Update 2-608-2908 (Approx. 4 pages)

Fifth Circuit: 2012 DACA Program Upheld Because Plaintiffs Lack Standing

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 14 Apr 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In Crane v. Johnson, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the state of Mississippi and a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and deportation officers all lacked standing to challenge the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of DACA could not go forward because none of the plaintiffs could point to a concrete and particularized injury they suffered as a result of DACA's implementation.
On April 7, 2015, in Crane v. Johnson, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the state of Mississippi and a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers all lacked standing to challenge the 2012 deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' challenge to DACA's constitutionality could not proceed because none of the plaintiffs could point to a concrete and particularized injury they suffered as a result of DACA's implementation. The Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's decision that Mississippi lacked standing, but reversed the district court's finding that the ICE agents had standing on limited claims. (No. 14-10049, (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2015).)

Background

DACA was instituted by President Obama in 2012. Under the program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercises prosecutorial discretion to grant deferred action to individuals without lawful status who were brought into the US when they were children. "Deferred action" refers to the deferral of removal (encompassing what was formerly known as exclusion and deportation) proceedings by US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) or ICE. The state of Mississippi and a class of ICE agents sued to enjoin the program, claiming that DACA's implementation was unconstitutional and exceeded the executive branch's authority. The defendants, including the current DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, moved to dismiss the action. The district court held that Mississippi did not have standing, but that the ICE agents did have standing based on the potential injury of employment-related sanctions for detaining a foreign national who is eligible for deferred action under DACA. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed most of the agents' claims. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

Outcome

The Fifth Circuit:
  • Upheld the district court's determination that Mississippi lacked standing to challenge DACA because it could not point to any harm it would suffer as a result of DACA's implementation, including:
    • no cost to the state due to DACA; and
    • no direct injury traceable to DACA.
  • Reversed the district court's finding that the ICE officers had standing to challenge DACA, finding that:
    • the agents misinterpreted DACA as requiring them to always grant deferred action to an undocumented foreign national rather than detaining the individual, when in fact DHS's 2012 directive gave ICE officers discretion to handle deferred action matters on a case-by-case basis; and
    • the discretion afforded to ICE agents makes it unlikely that they would be subject to employment sanctions as a result of detaining an alien who was eligible for deferred action.
  • Dismissed the action in its entirety.

Practical Implications

The Fifth Circuit's decision puts to rest the challenge to DACA as it was originally implemented and the program remains in effect. However, as the court noted in Crane v. Johnson, an expanded version of DACA and a new prosecutorial discretion program known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014, are currently subject to a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Texas v. United States, Case No. 1:14-cv-00254 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2015)). The district court decision has been appealed and will also be heard by the Fifth Circuit (see Legal Update, Preliminary Injunction Blocks President Obama's Executive Immigration Action: SD Texas).
For more information on DACA generally, see Practice Note, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
UPDATE: On July 14, 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied Mississippi's petition to rehear en banc whether the plaintiffs have standing to maintain this lawsuit.