The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction Thursday against President Barack Obama’s 2014 executive action that would have deferred potential deportation and given work permits to as many as 5 million people, but the one-line ruling resulting from a four-four tie isn’t all bad news for immigrants.

In fact, the more than 800,000 young people benefiting from the 2012 Obama action that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which wasn’t directly challenged, have had what could have been a catastrophic threat to their status kicked down the road.

The extremely short ruling from the Supreme Court upheld U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's February 2015 preliminary injunction against the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, which would grant a reprieve to parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and against an expansion of DACA.

But the ruling holds no legal weight against the young immigrant program, experts say, while a more lengthy ruling against the 2014 reforms could have been disastrous.

The case addressed by the Supreme Court, U.S. v. Texas, now is being sent back to Hanen, who found the administration had to submit the proposal for a public notice and comment period as required for some federal regulations by the Administrative Procedure Act. An appeals court panel that reviewed his ruling went further, finding the reforms were "not authorized by statute.”

There’s no reason to believe Hanen's reasoning will be more deferential to the Obama administration at trial, but experts say the full case could be reheard by the Supreme Court when the trial and then an appellate court decision are complete -- and by that point there may be a ninth justice who could sway the outcome in their favor.

“Today's judgment in no way affects a possible legal challenge to DACA, as there is no precedent set,” says Josh Blackman, an immigration law expert at the South Texas College of Law.

“The risk for DACA beneficiaries is if the next president rescinds the policy,” he says.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert who teaches at Cornell University, agrees the ruling “doesn’t change anything for original DACA beneficiaries.”

Yale-Loehr says the Thursday split decision from the Supreme Court theoretically could still be bad news for DACA beneficiaries if Texas or other states who share similar standing arguments -- in Texas’ case, the expense of issuing driver licenses -- decide to go after DACA, but not because of any change in the legal landscape.

Texas, the lead plaintiff, could potentially seek to amend its lawsuit to add the original DACA program, Yale-Loehr says, but it’s unclear if they would, as the young immigrants whose unlawful residency in the U.S. was caused by their parents -- commonly called “Dreamers” after the acronym of the failed DREAM Act -- generally are viewed with greater sympathy and were not initially targeted.

If DACA was somehow challenged and ruled unconstitutional, its young recipients would find themselves in serious hot water, losing benefits and putting themselves within reach of immigration officials to whom they provided personal information.

Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School, says the split decision “lessens the risk to DACA... as compared to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld the Fifth Circuit,” which had the more forceful finding the action was not authorized by statute.

“The Supreme Court has not weighed in on any of the merits questions on DAPA that might also apply to DACA,” she says. “Because the DAPA case will continue to be litigated and may well reach a fully constituted [Supreme] Court, whether DACA will ultimately be called into question remains an open question but a less nerve wracking one for DACA recipients than it could have been.”

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has been stalled by Senate Republicans who claim selection of the next justice should be an issue for voters to consider in November. If Democrats win the election, as polls suggest is possible, the tie may break in the executive action’s favor.

In the meantime, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still is accepting new applications for DACA and processing renewals.

“The court's temporary injunction… does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012 and discussed below,” the agency’s website says.