BROWNSVILLE – A lawsuit brought by Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia against federal officials and agencies alleges that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program is not based on firm constitutional ground.
The suit was filed in the Brownsville Division of the Southern District of Texas on May 1 against U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen and others. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
In a speech earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton laid out some of the arguments utilized by the states in question.
“DACA purported to grant lawful presence and work permits to nearly to 1 million unlawfully present aliens without congressional approval,” Paxton said in a May 1 press conference.
“Our coalition is urging U.S. district courts to declare DACA unconstitutional,” he said.
Paxton said the lawsuit does not ask for deportation of current immigrants covered under DACA status rules.
“This is about the rule of law, not any particular immigration policy,” Paxton said, contending the U.S. government does not have the power to set immigration policy and cautioning that DACA gives the executive branch “sweeping authority” to set policy.
Historic case law cited in the suit includes NAACP v. Trump and Arizona v. the United States, a 2012 case in which former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia registered a partial dissent.
In protecting the congressional right to decide immigration policy, the complaint cites Galvan v. Press stating that – “policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are – entrusted exclusively to Congress.”
The complaint also cites the Immigration and Nationality Act, in which Congress has classified various aliens and what constitutes legal entrance as well as consequences for unlawful presence.
In conclusion, the states ask for various types of relief including declaratory judgments.
“Underlying DACA is a dangerously broad conception of executive power—one that if left unchecked, could allow future executives to dismantle other duly enacted laws. The court must not allow that to occur,” the suit states.