AG Schneiderman: Federal Court Ruling Grants Preliminary Injunction in DACA Case

Saul Bowman
February 14, 2018

I suppose the only real shock here is that the ruling didn't come out of San Francisco, but NY.

This week the Supreme Court is set to meet behind closed doors to discuss whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of the related case.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of NY ruled the Trump administration has not offered legally adequate reasons to end the program which protects hundreds of thousands of children of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

It's the second time in less than two months that a USA judge found the rescinding of the program as proposed would be wrong. The issue was brought to the judge when several DACA recipients, known as "Dreamers", and 17 attorneys general led by New York AG Eric Schneiderman sued the federal government for the September 5, 2017 decision to end the program.

As NPR's Joel Rose reports, "Garaufis said the administration can rescind DACA".

Congress is trying to pass legislation before the DACA program ends March 5, when about 1,000 participants a day will begin losing deportation protections and work permits, making them vulnerable to deportation.


Both rulings ordered the government to keep processing DACA renewal requests.

Garaufis, however, said the government was "erroneous" in its conclusion that DACA was unconstitutional and that it violated the Administrative Procedures and Immigration and Nationality acts.

The legal battle over DACA complicates a debate now underway in Congress on whether to change the nation's immigration laws. He then offered Congress to come up with a permanent solution by March. Garaufis' decision was met with praise from Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center, who said, "Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well". They said it was more humane to do a six-month phaseout than to have a court end the program abruptly.

This ruling is rather unusual on several fronts.

The agency had already begun to accept renewal applications under the first court order.

Other reports by

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER