DAPA Case Study

The Supreme Court should should affirm that the State of Texas has standing to challenge the immigration executive orders that have been placed as it has sustained multiple injuries that were caused by DAPA. DAPA directly imposed substantial costs associated with issuing additional driver’s licenses; it also required additional health care, law enforcement, and education expenditures. Even if only a small fraction of DAPA recipients applied for driver’s licenses, Texas would incur millions of dollars in costs and it would hurt its state economy. These injuries would easily allow Texas establish standing for any ordinary litigant. In addition Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc held that “One party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.”
The opposition claims Texas does not have standing as it can avoid the harms that is caused by DAPA through a change of policy or behavior and that the injuries it sustained aren’t enough to get standing. They claim, Texas could avoid the driver’s-license-cost injury only by changing its policy and making driver’s licenses less

affordable. But this is itself an injury, because Texas has a sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code. And the Wyoming v. Oklahoma case routinely held that States have standing based on financial losses. Furthermore, States have parens patriae standing which means they are regarded as the legal protector of citizens unable to protect themselves and this applies to this case as Texas is trying to protect its citizens economic well-being. So, the state of Texas does have standing as it seeks to protect their citizens from economic discrimination in favor of DAPA recipients.
Moreover, the Supreme Court should affirm the injunction and uphold the separation of powers, because DAPA is one of the largest changes in immigration policy and the president has no constitutional authority to put in this type of order. What the president has done strictly goes against the constitution, as Article I Section 8 specifically gives Congress the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Such large changes should be created only by Congress, rather than it being unilaterally imposed by the executive. This presidential action lacked congressional support and therefore should be scrutinized as it is incompatible with Congress- the people’s representatives.
The naturalization of immigrants is already being handled by multiple immigration acts that Congress has already put in place like the 1986 Immigration Relief and Control Act. There is no need for DAPA, as it is just overwhelming the country by allowing the presence of millions of unauthorized aliens. Congress, also amended statutes to make lawful presence a condition for immigrants to gain certain benefits. The Fifth Circuit explained, DAPA transforms presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confers eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change. This cannot be viewed as the President exercising discretion as it alters the requirements of the lawful presence which was specifically put in place by Congress. Congress did not give the Executive the unreviewable power to grant lawful presence and establish eligibility for benefits.
Additionally, the president did not follow the ‘notice and comment’ policy stated by the APA.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires a federal agency or branch to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on any proposed rule and the president did not do this. Moreover, Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior states that an agency action must be tentative to count as a general statement of policy. DAPA is not tentative at all. It was immediately implemented and states began granting Expanded-DACA permits to over 100,000 aliens in under three months. This has put a definite strain on the nation’s resources, especially finance-wise. So, putting in a nationwide injunction on these executive orders will help slow down the naturalization process and help the states adjust their finances

accordingly.
Overall, the Supreme Court should uphold the separation of powers because the President has surpassed both the constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because under the constitution, the political process of the naturalization of immigrants must include the People’s elected representatives in Congress. Executive agencies are not entitled to rewrite immigration laws. The president is also not entitled to ignore public participation by disregarding the notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. Furthermore, The Supreme Court should rule that the president does not have discretion when it comes to deliberately placing thorough immigration acts that disregard the previous requirements Congress put in place as the president is abusing the discretion that is given. And finally, The Supreme Court should also rule that the State of Texas has standing because the injuries it sustained are valid and pass under Article III’s case and controversy requirement for standing.