Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.

On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program.

[1] DACA provides young immigrants who meet specific criteria with protection from deportation and eligibility for work authorization for two years.

[4] Prior to the Trump administration's rescission of DACA, the legality of a similar program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and a work-permit extension of DACA made alongside it, had been challenged by a coalition of 26 states led by Texas in the case United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).

[5] Martín Batalla Vidal was the son of undocumented immigrants who had lived in New York City who only learned of his "dreamer" status in 2008.

After the original DACA program was offered, Vidal applied in 2014 and had been approved in early 2015 for a three-year work permit.

[6] Vidal gained the help from Make the Road New York, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at the Yale Law School to obtain legal council and file suit against the United States Department of Homeland Security, the agency overseeing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services which handled the DACA system, around 2016 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to challenge the agency's nationwide policy based on the circuit injunction.

[6][7] The amended complaint stated that the government failed to provide an explanation for the reversal of DACA, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the Trump Administration's reversal is "unconstitutionally motivated by anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus, in violation of equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"[8] In September 2017 the government declined a request from Judge Nicholas Garaufis to extend an October 2017 deadline for biannual DACA renewals.

The Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California on June 18, 2020 and, holding that the Duke memorandum was "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA", vacated the preliminary injuction issued on February 13, 2018 and remanded to DHS for further proceedings.

[20][21] Eleven days after the Supreme Court decision the DHS acting secretary Chad Wolf issued a memorandum that altered the terms of DACA to require annual renewal and refuse new applicants.

Garaufis ruled that Wolf did not have legal authority to make changes to DACA because the appointment as DHS secretary was not confirmed by the Senate.

In Batalla Vidal, the court found that Plaintiffs' had relied on a document that contradicted "their otherwise-unsupported allegation of a change to DHS's information-use policy."

"[23] In Gondal v, United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., the Eastern District of New York found that plaintiffs do "not possess a liberty or property interest in a particular decision under DACA nor an employment authorization card."

[24] In Saget v. Trump, the Eastern District of New York cited Batalla Vidal to support their finding that plaintiffs have plausible alleged that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor behind the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti.

The court cited language in Batalla Vidal, where Judge Garaufis noted that "liability for discrimination will lie when a biased individual manipulates a non-biased decision-maker into taking discriminatory action.

However, the court entered an injunction prohibiting the federal government from sharing DACA applications information with immigrant enforcement.