When a Tie isn’t Really a Tie – Winners and Losers of U.S. v. Texas When a Tie isn’t Really a Tie – Winners and Losers of U.S. v. Texas

When a Tie isn’t Really a Tie – Winners and Losers of U.S. v. Texas

Through a deadlocked 4-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively affirmed the lower court’s decision in U.S. v. Texas, blocking implementation of two “Deferred Action” immigration initiatives announced as part of President Obama’s Executive Action in 2014. These initiatives would have expanded the initial “Deferred Action” program implemented in 2012, which provides eligibility for employment authorization and temporary relief from deportation for certain undocumented individuals. The federal government has not indicated whether it will pursue any further action at this time, but the 2012 Deferred Action program is not affected by this recent decision.
This original Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program grants temporary relief from deportation through the use of prosecutorial discretion to individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children. Applicants must establish that they meet certain age, physical presence, education, and criminal history requirements, and if approved, they are granted this temporary relief from deportation and are permitted to apply for and obtain employment authorization. Qualified applicants may continue to file initial and renewal DACA applications under the existing program.
The new initiatives would have advanced age and physical presence date requirements under the original DACA program, and would have additionally established a similar program granting temporary relief from deportation and employment permission for certain parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or “DAPA”).
Please contact Christl Glier, Jenifer Brown, or another member of the firm’s Immigration practice with questions about the impact of this decision or any other immigration matters.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances. 

View Full Site View Mobile Optimized