Source: http://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/index.php/2018/10/05/daca-in-2018-renewals-continue-but-the-legality-of-the-program-is-still-up-in-the-air/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:26:11+00:00

Document:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has been a prominent feature in the news for the past several years. DACA was created by President Obama’s executive order in June 2012. Since his presidential campaign Trump has been threatening to end the DACA program, and in September 2017, the program was terminated. However, things are not that simple.
the applicant is illegally in the U.S., and the U.S. government is going to defer deporting them. There are several requirements that must be met in order to request DACA, such as his/her age and date of arrival, length of residency, completion of schooling, and limits on criminal records (including no felonies or significant misdemeanors). DACA must be renewed every two years and the applicant must prove they still qualify for the program. One of the main criticisms of DACA has been that it encourages minors to illegally enter the US. However, no arrivals after June 15, 2007 are eligible for the program. The main benefit of DACA is receipt of a social security number and authorization to legally work.
for DACA. Due to this litigation, USCIS is currently accepting applications for DACA renewals, but is still not accepting applications for new DACA permits.
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
California, and D.C. courts earlier this year, which plaintiffs argue could indefinitely extend DACA.
defendants and the public outweigh those of the plaintiffs.
This is not to say that Judge Hanen will uphold DACA. In fact, in his order, the judge states that a true DACA program can only be created by Congress. In Texas, the Court did not rule on the legality of DACA; the Courts in that case sustained the legal challenges to the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) Program and other expansions to the DACA program. However, Judge Hanen also points out that “DACA and DAPA are basicall identical, and there is no legal ground for ‘striking DAPA that wouldn’t apply to DACA’ (and certainly no legal ground for striking Expanded DACA that does not apply to DACA itself).” Based on Judge Hanen’s comments in this order, it is very possible that in the near future DACA will be officially terminated. If that happens, the only way to resurrect DACA would be through Congressional action, and in today’s political climate, it does not seem likely that any immigration reform would successfully make its way through Congress.
 Staff Editor, Kentucky Law Journal, Volume 107; J.D. Candidate, The University of Kentucky College of Law (2020); B.A., Smith College (2017).
 Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Serv., https://www.uscis.gov/archive/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca (last visited Oct. 3, 2018) [hereinafter DACA].
 Adam Edelman, Trump Ends DACA Program, No New Applications Accepted, NBC News (Sept. 5, 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-announcement-n798686.
 Janet Napolitano, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (June 15, 2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf; Renew Your DACA, U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., https://www.uscis.gov/archive/renew-your-daca (last visited Oct. 3, 2018).
 Linda Qiu, Why Common Critiques of DACA Are Misleading, N.Y. Times (Sept. 8, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/us/politics/why-common-critiques-of-daca-are-misleading.html.
 Status of Current DACA Litigation, Nat’l Immigr. L. Ctr. 1, https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Status-of-Current-DACA-Litigation-2018.pdf (last updated Sept. 6, 2018); Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, 291 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
 NAACP v. Trump, 298 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Memorandum Opinion, Trustees of Princeton Univ. v. United States, 1:17-CV-02325 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 29, 2018).
 Status of Current DACA Litigation, supra note 13, at 1.
 See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 1, Texas v. Nielsen, No. 1:18-CV-00068 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2018).
States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). Both Courts upheld the decision of the Southern District Court of Texas.).
 Memorandum Opinion & Order, supra note 17, at 1.
 Status of Current DACA Litigation, supra note 13, at 6.
 Memorandum Opinion & Order, supra note 17, at 117.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.