Late last night, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction directing the Obama Administration to stop the implementation of expanded DACA and DAPA. The decision led to an immidiate halt in DHS’s plan to start accepting applications for expanded DACA this upcoming Thursday. We do not know what that means for DAPA, but for the timebeing, the plan is to put that plan on hold.
The following are some lessons from the decision:
1. The Decision Does Not Kill the Programs, it only delays them: Although the judge ruled that the Service must stop, the decision is only effective until the trial, and it could be lifted by a higher court. The Administration plans to appeal the decision, which could lead to a lifiting of the injunction.
2. The Decision Does not Mean that Opponents Won: The decision merely means that the Plaintiffs showed some sort of possible harm to halt implementation of the programs, but it does not mean that they won.
3. The Decision IS NOT a Ruling on the Merits of the Case: This is the most important point. The decision does not mean that opponents won, and that Mr. Obama is prohibited from implementing the programs. You may recall that in an earlier post, that a similar lawsuit by Sheriff Arpaio was dismissed in December 2014. The two law suits argued the same points of law. There still has to be hearings and a trial over the merits of the case.
Many commentators agree that the injunction will be lifted. What do you think?