A federal judge’s ruling Monday halted President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, stopping—at least temporarily—the government’s attempt to grant legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s ruling, in response to a lawsuit from 26 states, comes just days before the Obama administration planned to implement the new rules. The White House vowed to appeal the Texas judge’s decision.

John Malcolm, the director of The Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, broke down the impact of Hanen’s decision in an interview with The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal: What is the immediate impact of this order?

Malcolm: The immediate impact of Judge Hanen’s order is that the Department of Homeland Security will have to suspend its planned rollout of the president’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program and parts of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, specifically, the parts of that Childhood Arrivals program which were expanded by the Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program.

Q: What is Judge Hanen’s basic reasoning for this order?

A: The basic reasoning of Judge Hanen’s order is that the states who brought this action will suffer a cognizable injury because of the additional costs that they will have to bear, including costs associated with issuing drivers’ licenses and providing health care and unemployment benefits, if the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program is implemented.

Moreover, Judge Hanen noted that, “[d]eferred action is not a status created or authorized by law or by Congress, nor has its properties been described in any relevant legislative act.”

The judge also held that the program is not a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is a form of inaction or “non-enforcement,” since the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program is “actually affirmative action rather than inaction,” in that the programs benefits to which recipients would otherwise not be entitled, specifically, “legal presence to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel.”

The judge held that Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents represents a “legislative” or “substantive” rule that should have undergone a notice-and-comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act, and because it didn’t, he held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.

Q: Why does this ruling only have a “temporary” impact? Is this simply a suspension of the program as the lawsuit moves forward?

A: The ruling has only a “temporary” impact because the judge granted an injunction to preserve the status quo pending a full trial on the merits.

Once that is done, of course, the judge could dissolve the injunction he entered today or enter a permanent injunction barring The Department of Homeland Security from implementing the program, although there is little doubt that Homeland Security would appeal such a ruling.

Q: Do you expect this order to be “stayed” by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans? If so, what will that mean for Obama’s new immigration policies?

A: Judge Hanen held that granting a preliminary injunction was appropriate because if the program was implemented and the government began issuing licenses and other benefits, “[t]he genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle.”

Unless the Fifth Circuit is convinced that the judge is wrong on this law, this finding should weigh heavily on the appellate court at this stage of the litigation.

Q: Do you think this order will ultimately be repealed by a higher court?

A: The questions raised by this lawsuit are fairly novel. I would not want to hazard a guess as to whether it will be overturned by a higher court.