The judicial history is complex. Expanded DACA from 2014 actually was challenged under APA grounds, the 5th circuit upheld the stay, it went to the Supreme Cour

The judicial history is complex. Expanded DACA from 2014 actually was challenged under APA grounds, the 5th circuit upheld the stay, it went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 4-4 on it meaning the 5th court ruling stood which held that it violated APA; > On November 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The majority accepted the lower court’s findings that Texas has standing to bring this lawsuit based on the additional costs it would incur to issue driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of expanded DACA and DAPA. The court acknowledged that judicial review is unavailable under the APA where a matter is committed to agency discretion and that the government’s immigration enforcement priorities fall squarely within this category; nonetheless, the majority also found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act. [1] - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-challenges-executive-action-on-immigration https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-ch...