How did Texas v. United States (DAPA litigation) resolve, and what did the Supreme Court say about executive authority over immigration?
Executive summary
United States v. Texas (commonly called the DAPA litigation) ended in a 4–4 split at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2016, resulting in affirmation of the Fifth Circuit’s injunction that blocked the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program and an expansion of DACA without any precedential opinion from the Court [1] [2]. Because an evenly divided Court issued only a per curiam affirmance of the lower-court judgment, the Supreme Court did not articulate a binding rule about the scope of executive authority over immigration, leaving contested questions—standing, APA rulemaking, and the Take Care Clause—unresolved at the high‑court level [2] [3].
1. How the case reached the Supreme Court and what the courts below held
The litigation began when 26 states sued after the Obama administration announced DAPA and a DACA expansion in 2014; the states alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Take Care Clause and won a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a decision the Fifth Circuit affirmed [4] [5]. The Fifth Circuit’s rulings emphasized standing based on state costs (such as driver’s licenses) and found a substantial likelihood that the policies were procedural and substantive rules that required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking under the APA [5] [1].
2. The Supreme Court’s narrow procedural resolution
When the Supreme Court reviewed the case, it split 4–4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, issuing a one‑line per curiam: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” which left the Fifth Circuit’s injunction in place but produced no majority opinion, rationale, or precedential holding [1] [2]. Legal observers and advocates noted that a tie vote does not resolve the substantive merits and supplies no binding guidance to lower courts about whether deferred‑action programs like DAPA violate the APA or the Take Care Clause [3] [6].
3. What the decision meant in practice for DAPA and DACA expansion
Practically, the tie prevented implementation of DAPA and the announced DACA expansion: the injunction remained effective, and administration plans to confer three‑year deferred‑action status and work authorization to millions were halted [7] [8]. The ruling was widely described as a substantive setback for the Obama administration’s immigration initiative because, absent a favorable Supreme Court decision, the policies could not move forward as announced [9].
4. What the Court said — and more importantly, what it did not say — about executive power
Because the Supreme Court issued no majority opinion, it did not resolve the fundamental constitutional question presented—how far prosecutorial discretion and deferred action reach as exercises of executive enforcement discretion versus agency rulemaking subject to APA procedures—so it made no definitive pronouncement about the executive’s authority over immigration [2] [3]. The absence of a written opinion left two competing narratives intact: state challengers pointing to procedural rulemaking and constitutional limits, and the government and many scholars arguing that deferred action is a longstanding exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to the APA’s notice‑and‑comment requirements [4] [1].
5. Competing interpretations, political consequences, and subsequent developments
Advocates for expanded executive relief warned that the split merely postponed resolution and that administrative fixes or new rulemaking could revive deferred‑action programs, while critics argued the result re‑politicized immigration by pushing the question back to Congress and state courts [9] [7]. In practice, DHS later rescinded DAPA under a subsequent administration, and lower‑court litigation over DACA and related policies continued for years—illustrating that the Supreme Court tie shifted the battlefield rather than settling the law [10] [8].
6. Bottom line for executive authority over immigration
The tie in United States v. Texas left the most important question unanswered: the Supreme Court did not adopt a controlling rule limiting or endorsing broad executive discretion in immigration enforcement, and the immediate effect was to preserve the lower‑court injunction that blocked DAPA’s implementation [2] [1]. That procedural outcome reinforced the reality that, absent clear Supreme Court precedent or congressional action, disputes over the scope of executive immigration authority remain litigated and politically contested rather than definitively resolved [9] [3].