The judge overseeing the lawsuit in Washington, Judge John D. Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, went even further on Friday by reaffirming an earlier ruling that essentially tells the government to reinstate DACA and start taking new applications from anyone who is eligible for the temporary status. But that does not mean young immigrants can start submitting their applications; the government has until Aug. 23 to appeal, and has signaled that it intends to fight.

Even before that date comes around, however, the fourth lawsuit, the one heard in Texas on Wednesday, could complicate matters even further. A group of nine states led by Texas sued to end the program permanently in May, after the California and New York judges had ruled in favor of the program. That lawsuit landed in front of Judge Hanen, who previously made his tough-on-immigration views clear when he ruled in 2015 against another immigration program the Obama administration had created as a companion to DACA. That program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, which was intended to shield some parents of American citizens and legal residents from deportation, never went into effect; the Supreme Court deadlocked over it in 2016, leaving Judge Hanen’s decision in place.

What happened this week in the Texas case?

In Wednesday’s court hearing, lawyers for Texas said that the judge should issue a preliminary injunction ending the program. (The Trump administration refused to defend the program against Texas’ lawsuit, leaving the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund to intervene on behalf of 22 DACA recipients.)

Texas is arguing that DACA is little different from the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, and therefore deserves the same treatment from Judge Hanen. But lawyers for Maldef pointed out one big difference: DACA, unlike DAPA, has already been in effect for years, they argued in court, and Texas has not been able to show that the program has harmed the state.

“Texas was not able to point to evidence that DACA recipients are costing the state anything, and in fact the evidence in the case is that by being able to work and live and participate in civic society and the economy, that Texas over all is better with DACA recipients,” said Nina Perales, the group’s lawyer.

But Todd Lawrence Disher, the Texas special counsel, said in court, “No amount of economic activity makes lawful what is otherwise unlawful.”

What does the future hold for the program?

There is more uncertainty ahead.

If Judge Hanen does issue an injunction forcing the government to freeze DACA, it could set up a clash between his ruling and those of the three other judges: The Trump administration could be under conflicting orders to end the program; to resurrect the program and allow new applications; and to keep the program but only for those already enrolled, allowing them to renew their two-year work permits. An appeals court is already considering the California case, and Judge Hanen’s ruling, whatever it is, will probably be appealed to another appeals court. But those two appeals courts could rule differently.