Power to delay deportations
United States v. Texas
In brief
The Supreme Court split evenly, leaving the lower court’s judgment in place without a majority ruling on DAPA’s legality.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · June 23, 2016 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- Texas and other states challenged the federal Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, raising questions about their right to sue and whether the program violated federal law or the Constitution.
- Who it affects
- The lower court’s judgment stayed in effect in the states’ challenge, but the Supreme Court did not settle whether DAPA complied with federal law or the Constitution.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court split evenly and left the lower court’s judgment in place (affirmed), without a majority ruling on those legal questions.
The case asked whether states that subsidize people granted deferred action could sue and whether DAPA followed federal law and the Constitution.
Question presented
1. Do states that provide subsidies to persons who are granted deferred action have standing to sue because the new guidelines will lead to more persons being eligible for deferred action? 2. Is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program arbitrary and capricious? 3. Did DAPA violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to go through the notice-and-comment procedure? 4. Does DAPA violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
- Result
- Affirmed
What's next
The lower court’s judgment remains in place. The Supreme Court did not send the case back or issue a majority answer on the legal questions.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Opinion
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.