The Fate of DACA: A Constitutional Debate

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects roughly 700,000 immigrants brought to the U.S. Illegally as children from deportation, has been the subject of ongoing legal and political battles. The core question revolves around whether the program’s creation exceeded presidential authority and whether it requires congressional approval to be constitutional.

What is DACA?

DACA was established in 2012 under the Obama administration. It provides temporary protection from deportation and work permits to individuals who entered the country as children, meet certain educational requirements, and have no serious criminal record. The program was initiated through an executive order, bypassing Congress.

The Constitutional Concerns

Critics, including legal scholars like Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, argue that DACA is unconstitutional because it essentially creates a latest immigration policy without congressional authorization . The Constitution grants Congress the power to establish immigration laws, and executive actions should only be used to enforce existing laws, not to create new ones.

Trump Administration Challenges and Court Rulings

The Trump administration attempted to end DACA in 2017, arguing that it was an overreach of executive power. However, lower courts blocked the administration’s efforts, and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to grant the Trump administration’s appeal to end the program in 2019 . The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of DACA itself, but rather on the procedures used by the Trump administration to attempt to end it.

Current Status and Future Outlook

As of March 15, 2026, the legal status of DACA remains uncertain. The Justice Department’s request to allow President Trump to end DACA was still pending as of 2019, and the case could be revisited by the courts . A definitive resolution may require Congress to pass legislation addressing the status of DACA recipients.

Arguments in Favor of DACA

Proponents of DACA argue that the individuals protected by the program were brought to the U.S. Through no fault of their own and have grown up as part of American society. They contend that deporting these individuals would be unjust and harmful to the country. However, even supporters acknowledge the need for a long-term legislative solution.

Hans von Spakovsky’s Perspective

Hans von Spakovsky has consistently argued against the constitutionality of DACA, emphasizing the importance of congressional authority over immigration policy . He believes that the program should be ended unless Congress explicitly approves it .