Question: United States v. Texas was the court case regarding the program that granted status to immigrants living in the US since what year?
Context: Gill v. Whitford is a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether a voter redistricting plan created in 2011 for the State of Wisconsin used partisan gerrymandering.  The Supreme Court case comes from an appeal made by the State of Wisconsin, challenging the decision of the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin's ruling that the 2011 redistricting plan was unconstitutional. United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding US labor law.  The case concerned the scope of protection for employees under the Social Security Act 1935. United States v. Pineda-Moreno was a 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices.  The court ruled that a placing a GPS tracking device a personal vehicle without a warrant did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, even if the vehicle was parked in the defendant's driveway at the time the device was placed.  The case was reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme Court in light of "United States v. Antoine Jones". Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned American immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents.  Deferred action is not full legal status but would come with a three-year, renewable work permit and exemption from deportation.  DAPA was not a law passed by Congress.  It was a presidential "executive action". United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program. Ahmer Jamil Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others, (D1258/2014) commonly known as the YouTube case is a 2014 Sindh High Court case regarding Internet freedom and censorship in Pakistan.  The case was filed by 24 petitioners, and argued in court by Ahmer Jamil Khan and Saadullah Awan as litigants in person.  In this case, the petitioners challenged internet filtering and censorship by the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, especially regarding YouTube. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device.  The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation.  The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance.  During a single trip, officers followed a car containing the beeper, relying on beeper signal to determine the car's final destination.  The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant.  It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one's movements.  Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (1984) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether a public condemnee is entitled to consequential damages measured by the cost of acquiring a substitute facility if it has a duty to replace the condemned facility.  The Court declined to award the costs of the substitute facility, holding that the Fifth Amendment does not require consequential damages when the market value of the condemned property is ascertainable and when there is no showing of manifest injustice. United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the Fourth Amendment's border search exception and balloon swallowing. United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment.  It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty".  It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning.
Answer: 2010