The Fifth Circuit Court ruled DACA partially illegal in Texas while preserving the program’s viability in the remaining 49 states, creating a split system of immigration protection across America.

At a Glance

• The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that DACA work authorization is illegal in Texas but upheld deportation protections
• MALDEF strategically chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court, limiting the ruling’s impact to Texas only
• Current DACA recipients nationwide can continue to renew their status, including work authorization in 49 states
• Texas District Court Judge Hanen will determine how to implement the decision within Texas
• The ruling signals a judicial trend toward state-specific implementation of federal immigration policies

Texas-Only Restriction Preserves DACA Elsewhere

In a significant development for immigration policy, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in March 2025 that portions of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are illegal in Texas. The court determined that while “forbearance from removal” is permissible as executive discretion, work authorization through DACA violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Crucially, this ruling applies only to Texas, preserving the full DACA program for recipients in the other 49 states.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which has represented DACA recipients throughout the case, made the strategic decision not to seek Supreme Court review of the Fifth Circuit decision. This effectively finalizes the ruling while limiting its impact geographically, preventing a potentially nationwide injunction that could have completely dismantled the program.

Strategic Decision to Protect DACA Nationwide

By choosing not to appeal to the Supreme Court, MALDEF and other stakeholders ensured that the DACA program remains fully functional across most of the country. “DACA AND WORK AUTHORIZATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE RENEWING AND THOSE NEWLY APPLYING FOR DACA IN THE 49 STATES OTHER THAN TEXAS,” noted legal expert Josh Blackman in his analysis of the situation.

This calculated legal maneuver reflects a growing trend in federal courts, particularly the Fifth Circuit, toward limiting relief to specific plaintiff states rather than issuing nationwide injunctions. The decision creates a patchwork immigration system where DACA protections vary by state, but it also provides certainty for hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients outside of Texas.

What Happens Next for DACA Recipients

With the Fifth Circuit’s decision now final, the case returns to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas to determine exactly how the ruling will be implemented within the state. MALDEF has indicated it will advocate for a phased implementation that respects the reliance interests of current DACA holders in Texas, potentially allowing them to maintain work authorization for a transition period.

For current DACA recipients nationwide, experts recommend continuing to submit renewal applications as normal. The Department of Homeland Security may eventually resume processing initial DACA applications with work authorization for applicants in all states except Texas. The Trump administration has shown no interest in terminating the program, suggesting stability for DACA recipients outside Texas for the foreseeable future.

Implications for Federal Immigration Policy

This case represents a significant shift in how federal courts approach nationwide injunctions and immigration policy enforcement. The Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit its ruling to Texas rather than imposing a nationwide injunction signals a judicial preference for allowing states some autonomy in determining how federal immigration policies are implemented within their borders.

The outcome creates an unusual situation where a federal program operates differently depending on state residence. This state-by-state approach to federal policy implementation raises questions about the uniformity of immigration law and could foreshadow similar rulings on other contested federal programs. For conservatives concerned about federal overreach, this represents a significant victory for state sovereignty in immigration matters.