A Federal Judge Just Ordered the Trump Administration to Fully Restore DACA

The government has 20 days to respond.

DACA recipients and others at a rally in Washington, D.C.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A federal judge ruled Friday evening that the Trump administration must fully restore Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that shielded undocumented immigrants who came here as children from deportation.

This doesn’t mean that the fate of the DACA program is entirely secure. As CNN notes, US District Judge John D. Bates’s decision comes ahead of another DACA hearing in Texas next week, in which Texas and other states have sued to end the program and are expected to win their case. This could set up potentially conflicting court orders. Two other DACA-related cases are also pending.  

The decision will not immediately go into effect—Bates gave the Trump administration 20 days to decide whether to appeal the decision. 

Bates had previously ruled in April that the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the program was “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the administration to continue accepting both renewal applications and new applications for DACA. He gave the administration 90 days to respond to the decision before his ruling took effect. In an opinion issued today, Bates noted that this deadline has now expired, and the government’s response has been insufficient. He writes that the administration “fails to elaborate meaningfully” on why it considered the program unlawful, and its attempt to offer additional “policy” grounds for rescinding DACA “simply repackage legal arguments previously made.” 

“The Court did not hold in its prior opinion, and it does not hold today, that DHS lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to rescind the DACA program,” Bates writes in his conclusion. “Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program—or to take any other action, for that matter—it must give a rational explanation for its decision.” 

Read the decision here:


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend