From the decision:
DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and “we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.” DAPA undoubtedly implicates “question[s] of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.” But assuming arguendo that Chevron applies and that Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at hand, we would still strike down DAPA as an unreasonable interpretation that is “manifestly contrary” to the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act]...So, the Obama Regime has not only lost on the administrative implementation of DAPA, but also on the underlying legality. And therein lies an opening, an opening that this writer predicted would appear when reviewing the original decision by the District Court, the same legal reasoning applies to DACA; the States have standing to challenge and have DACA overturned as well.
The interpretation of those provisions that the Secretary advances would allow him to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States—an untenable position in light of the INA’s intricate system of immigration classifications and employment eligibility. Even with “special deference” to the Secretary, the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.[Emphasis added ]
Hopefully Chris Crane, head of the National ICE Council (NICEC), and Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, will take up the mantle and challenge DACA in the 5th Circuit. And the likelihood of overturning DACA is very real, as the Regime realized back in 2013, when it tried to negotiate the issue with Crane and the NICEC.
The Court of Appeals plainly stated that it recognized that DHS was engaged in its own jihad against employees who refused to participate in the illegality, clearly hinting that the implicit illegality of DACA would provide standing to any DHS employee disciplined for refusing to illegally provide benefits to illegal aliens:
In denying the government’s motion for a stay of the injunction, the district court further noted that the President had made public statements suggesting that in reviewing applications pursuant to DAPA, DHS officials who “don’t follow the policy” will face “consequences,” and “they’ve got a problem.”The clear cut decision by the 5th Circuit shows that the Regime doesn't have a legal basis for its amnesty and it's time for Crane and Kobach to strike back with a lawsuit on behalf of DHS employees who refuse to implement DACA and DAPA and thereby are upholding their Oath of Office to see that the Constitution and the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.