[20180426]LSB10057_地区法院禁止DACA逐步淘汰：解释和要点.pdf

CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i District Court Enjoins DACA Phase-Out: Explanation and Takeaways Updated April 26, 2018 Update 2: On April 24, 2018, a federal district court in the District of Columbia held that the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative (DACA) violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The decision, NAACP v. Trump, grants permanent relief that differs from the nationwide preliminary injunctions granted by district courts in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of New York (both analyzed below). Specifically, the NAACP court decided to vacate the DACA rescission and remand it to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency responsible for administering DACA, because the legal reasoning that formed the basis for the rescission was “scant” and “barebones.” But the district court stayed the vacatur order for 90 days to give DHS “an opportunity to better explain its rescission decision.” For the time being, therefore, NAACP does not change the current availability of DACA relief: the preliminary injunctions issued by the other two district court