Injunction is upheld against president’s measures that could prevent millions, including people who arrived illegally as children, being thrown out of the US

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

Barack Obama’s executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation has suffered a legal setback with an appeal to the supreme court now the administration’s only option.



A 2-1 decision by the fifth US circuit court of appeals in New Orleans has upheld a previous injunction – dealing a blow to Obama’s plan, which is opposed by Republicans and challenged by 26 states.

The states, all led by Republican governors, said the federal government exceeded its authority in demanding whole categories of immigrants be protected.

Three-quarters of Californians say undocumented immigrants should stay Read more

The Obama administration has said it is within its rights to ask the Department of Homeland Security to use discretion before deporting non-violent migrants with US family ties.

The case has become the focal point of the Democratic president’s efforts to change US immigration policy.

Seeing no progress on legislative reform in Congress, Obama announced in November 2014 that he would take executive action to help immigrants. He has faced criticism from Republicans who say the program grants amnesty to lawbreakers.

Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the US illegally as children.



In its ruling the appeals court said it was denying the government’s appeal to stay the May injunction “after determining that the appeal was unlikely to succeed on its merits”.



Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory against the Obama administration.

John Scalise, the number three Republican in the House of Representatives, said the court decision was “a major victory for the rule of law”.

The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement that the ruling meant the state, which has led the legal challenge, “has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness”.