Biden Administration Moving Swiftly, To Place Firm Rules Protecting DACA -- Until A Legislative Fix Is Passed... And, Texas Case Will Fail.

Overnight, there's been news in various outlets that Mr. Biden will in the coming days submit new rule-making on DACA.

The program will continue. Keep applying people. And we will see the Supremes ultimately strike the outlier trial court level ruling in Texas, by Judge Hanen. So. . . here is a bump and update, of ours, most recently on DACA's continued vitality, generally:

We have covered most of this for going on a decade now -- the back and forth litigation as to DACA.

It is note-worthy that the opinion by USDC Judge Hanen (SD, TX -- appointed by Bush43 in 2002) makes mostly political points, not legal ones -- and then essentially stays the entirety of his edict. It is all really a tempest in a teapot.

That is because (as we reported in June 2020). . . the US Supreme Court has already decided the question -- in favor of continuing DACA. Hanen nowhere grapples with this fact. He chooses instead to agree with the logically dubious dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas. Confidential note to Judge Hanen: that would be no recipe for being upheld on appeal. [But it will take a moment (perhaps 14 months), to wind its way up to the Supremes, now -- through the Fifth Circuit, which as a largely GOP controlled court, will find a way to affirm it.]

So, let us read the Supremes' majority opinion on the issue -- from almost exactly one year ago (not some W-appointed trial judge, down in Texas):

. . .It is a “foundational principle of administrative law” that judicial review of agency action is limited to “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” Michigan, 576 U. S., at 758. If those grounds are inadequate, a court may remand for the agency to do one of two things: First, the agency can offer “a fuller explanation of the agency’s reasoning at the time of the agency action.” Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654 (1990). . . .

Justice Holmes famously wrote that “[m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.” Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 141, 143 (1920). But it is also true, particularly when so much is at stake, that “the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people.” St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 208, 229 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted. This is not the case for cutting corners to allow DHS to rely upon reasons absent from its original decision. . . .

And so, my unsolicited legal advice to all young people in the US, as would be Dreamers: keep applying into the DACA program. The Texas judge's ruling of Friday will be waste-paper bin liner, by a year from today. Onward, grinning.

नमस्ते