President Donald Trump's decision to end the DACA program, which protects undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, would cause irreparable harm to its roughly 700,000 enrollees, the court said. | Evan Vucci/AP photo EMPLOYMENT & IMMIGRATION Appeals court upholds block on Trump’s attempt to end DACA

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court's temporary order preventing President Donald Trump from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era DACA program, which allows roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to obtain work permits and protects them from deportation, was likely “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”


Trump and Republicans made immigration restrictions central to the midterm election campaign. In recent weeks, Trump has suggested he could revoke birthright citizenship by executive order — a legally contentious proposition — and ordered a massive troop surge to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The ruling Thursday by a three-judge panel represents a major setback to the administration's anti-immigration agenda.

COUNTDOWN TO 2020 The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The Trump administration earlier this week petitioned the Supreme Court to take up several cases over the decision to end DACA. In a related filing, the Justice Department said the justices should intervene in order to ensure an “appropriately prompt resolution“ in the litigation.

The 9th Circuit decision preserves the status quo for the moment and will require the administration to continue accepting DACA renewal applications.

The panel — composed of two appointees of former President Barack Obama and one of former President Bill Clinton — found the decision to end DACA was based “solely on a misconceived view of the law“ and therefore subject to review by federal courts.

“The executive wields awesome power in the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws,” the ruling reads. “Our decision today does not curb that power, but rather enables its exercise in a manner that is free from legal misconceptions and is democratically accountable to the public.”

In a concurring opinion, Judge John Owens disagreed that the DACA termination was reviewable as an “arbitrary and capricious“ executive decision. However, he found plaintiffs reasonably alleged the rescission was motivated by racial animus, which warranted a freeze on the termination.

“A merits decision from the district court concluding that the executive rescinded DACA because of unconstitutional racial animus would be little more than an advisory opinion if by that time thousands of young people had lost their status due to the lack of an injunction preserving it,” he wrote.

During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit in May, Owens repeatedly raised questions about the possible role of racial bias in the decision to end the program.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose state is a party in one of the lawsuits affected by the decision, called the ruling “a tremendous victory“ for the program’s enrollees.

Trump announced in September 2017 that he would end DACA, and the Homeland Security Department stopped accepting renewal requests the following month. But in January, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the administration to restart renewals, arguing that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ conclusion that the program was illegal appeared to be "based on a flawed legal premise."

A Brooklyn-based federal judge followed suit in February and also ruled to halt the planned termination. Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Court Judge John Bates then took a step further and ordered a full restart of the program — but immediately put that ruling on hold pending appeal.

Not all DACA lawsuits have sought to end the program. Texas and six other states sued the Trump administration in May to shut DACA down, arguing that DACA overstepped the authority of the executive branch — the same argument that sunk a separate Obama deportation relief program created in 2014.

Brownsville-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, the same judge who ruled against the 2014 program,declined to issue an emergency injunction against the program in August, while signaling that he will likely move to block DACA later. Should that occur, the question of whether the Trump administration must preserve DACA or end it will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court.