The supreme court has rejected the Trump administration’s unusual request to bypass a federal appeals court in a case stemming from the president’s cancellation of a program that protects young immigrants known as Dreamers.

The court’s decision on Monday against intervening in a California lawsuit means the government must continue to accept renewal applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or Daca.

The California attorney general, Xavier Becerra, who brought the suit, said the decision was a victory for the “rule of law” and the 800,000 people protected from deportation by the program. “We hope all these victories are adding up to show this is a program that is fully legal,” Becerra said.

In September 2017, the Trump administration cancelled Daca, which offerstemporary protection against deportation and grants eligibility for work permits to people who migrated to the US as children but do not have legal status.

Quick Guide What is Daca and who are the Dreamers? Show Who are the Dreamers? Dreamers are young immigrants who would qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (Daca) program, enacted under Barack Obama in 2012. Most people in the program entered the US as children and have lived in the US for years “undocumented”. Daca gave them temporary protection from deportation and work permits. Daca was only available to people younger than 31 on 15 June 2012, who arrived in the US before turning 16 and lived there continuously since June 2007. Most Dreamers are from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and the largest numbers live in California, Texas, Florida and New York. Donald Trump cancelled the program in September but has also said he wants Congress to develop a program to “help” the population. What will happen to the Dreamers? Under the Trump administration, new applications under Daca will no longer be accepted. For those currently in the program, their legal status and other Daca-related permits (such as to work and attend college) will begin expiring in March 2018 – unless Congress passes legislation allowing a new channel for temporary or permanent legal immigration status – and Dreamers will all lose their status by March 2020.

Technically, as their statuses lapse they could be deported and sent back to countries many have no familiarity with. It is still unclear whether this would happen. Fear had been rising in the run-up to last week’s announcement. Those with work permits expiring between 5 September 2017 and 5 March 2018 will be allowed to apply for renewal by 5 October. What does the recent ruling by Judge William Alsup mean? In his ruling, Alsup ordered the Trump administration to restart the program, allowing Daca recipients who already qualify for the program to submit applications for renewal. However, he said the federal government did not have to process new applications from people who had not previously received protection under the program. When the Trump administration ended the Daca program, it allowed Daca recipients whose legal status expired on or before 5 March to renew their legal status. Roughly 22,000 recipients failed to successfully renew their legal status for various reasons. Legal experts and immigration advocates are advising Daca recipients not to file for renewal until the administration provides more information about how it intends to comply with the ruling. “These next days and weeks are going to create a lot of confusion on the legal front,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration’s termination of Daca. Joanna Walters

The Daca program was to end on 5 March, but because of decisions in the California lawsuit and a separate lawsuit in New York, the government is obliged to continue accepting renewal applications, perhaps indefinitely. People who have never had Daca benefits, however, cannot apply for the program under the courts’ orders.

“While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the supreme court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain Daca,” a Department of Justice spokesman, Devin O’Malley, said in a statement, referring to the decision to review a case or not, sometimes known as “cert”.

“We will continue to defend DHS’ lawful authority to wind down Daca in an orderly manner,” he said.

The California and New York injunctions have been appealed to federal courts.

“It seems likely that injunctions that are in effect will stay in effect until those courts of appeals rule, which would be at the earliest in June or later,” said the immigration attorney Andrew Pincus, who has argued in the supreme court.

The injunctions could stay in effect beyond those rulings if the appeals courts affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

Immigration advocates cheered the supreme court decision, but emphasized the need for a permanent solution for Dreamers.

“I’m thrilled with the supreme court decision,” said Eliana Fernandez, a plaintiff in the New York case.

Fernandez, a mother to two children born in the US, called on Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would create a pathway to citizenship for her and other Dreamers, but which has failed to be passed by successive administrations.

Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants Congress to create a solution for Dreamers, but his decision to cancel the program has left the lives of those protected by the program hanging in the balance.

The White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that Daca “is clearly unlawful”.

“The district judge’s decision to unilaterally reimpose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority,” Shah said.

In a brief unsigned comment, the justices say they assume “the court of appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case”.

Trump had set 5 March as the end date for the Dacaprogram.

It is unclear how the court’s action Monday will affect efforts in Congress to come up with a legislative fix. The Senate recently failed to pass an immigration bill.

The supreme court rarely hears a case before a lower appeals court has considered it. The fight over whether Richard Nixon had to turn over the Watergate tapes is one such example.

