A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to bring a DACA recipient it deported to Mexico back to the U.S. within seven days, establishing critical precedent on the legal force of DACA protections. U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins found the federal government flagrantly violated Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s protections from deportation under her active Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status when it removed her on Feb. 19.
What changed
Immigration authorities arrested Estrada Juarez during an interview to obtain permanent residency and deported her less than 24 hours later. She entered the U.S. without authorization at 15 years old and has lived in the country for nearly 30 years, maintaining DACA status since 2013.
The government argued the court “had no power to intervene,” signaling the administration may contest or delay rather than comply. However, the judge wrote: “Petitioner was conferred substantial benefit pursuant to her DACA status, including the right to live and work in the United States without fear of removal.” This directly contradicted DHS’s position that DACA does not give anyone legal status.
Judge Coggins also found constitutional violations beyond the deportation itself. A federal judge said immigration authorities violated those protections and failed to give her due process in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights.
Why it matters
This decision fundamentally shifts how practitioners must advise DACA clients on their legal status and deportation risk. For years, DHS has treated DACA as merely discretionary non-enforcement—a policy that could change without statutory force. This ruling establishes that DACA confers enforceable legal rights that can be litigated in federal court.
The holding applies pressure to adjudicators and immigration officers to respect active DACA status. In his second term, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested hundreds of DACA recipients, claiming that those with the temporary protections are subject to deportation. This decision provides a federal court precedent that such arrests, if followed by removal, may be unlawful regardless of DHS’s position.
If you represent DACA clients facing enforcement or questioning their status validity, you now have binding district court authority that DACA is substantive protection, not discretionary forbearance. The decision also signals that courts will scrutinize the speed and manner of removal—even if a removal order existed on paper, removal without notice or due process may violate the Fifth Amendment.
Way forward
- If a DACA client is arrested or detained: Cite Estrada Juarez immediately to arguing that DACA confers enforceable rights and that removal in violation of those rights is unlawful. File for habeas corpus and expedited review.
- For existing removal orders: If your client has DACA and an old removal order was discovered during an immigration interview, cite this decision to argue that the removal order cannot be reinstated while DACA status is active.
- Document DACA status proactively: Ensure all DACA clients have current EAD cards, USCIS receipts, and renewal evidence in their possession. The court’s reasoning turns on the visibility of active DACA status.
- Consider federal court jurisdiction: If ICE proceeds with removal despite active DACA, federal habeas corpus may be faster and more favorable than administrative appeal.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a federal court decision and is not legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Policy can change without notice, and court decisions may be appealed or distinguished. Always verify the current status of case law, DACA policy, and your client’s facts against primary sources. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before advising a client or filing any petition. This site is operated by a software company, not a law firm.