Revised DACA program again debated before Texas judge who previously ruled against it

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

66% : Ahead of the hearing on Thursday morning, more than 50 people gathered at a park near the courthouse to show their support for DACA.
62% : Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department, DACA recipients and the state of New Jersey argued during the hearing the states have failed to present any evidence that any of the costs they allege they have incurred because of illegal immigration have been tied to DACA recipients.
55% : There were 580,310 people enrolled in DACA at the end of December, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
53% : President Joe Biden and advocacy groups have called on Congress to pass permanent protections for " Dreamers," which is what people protected by DACA are commonly called.
52% : Many of them held up signs that read: "Immigration Reform Now," "Protect DACA" and "Immigrant Power Immigrant Rights."
50% : In 2020, the high court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly ended DACA, allowing it to stay in place.
48% : The new version of DACA took effect in October and was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process.
40% : But the lawyers arguing for DACA, acknowledging that Hanen could again rule against them, also asked Hanen to not completely end the program if that's what he would ultimately decide to do.
35% : In 2021, Hanen declared DACA illegal, ruling that the program had not been subjected to public notice and comment periods required under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
29% : In 2022, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen's earlier ruling declaring DACA illegal, but sent the case back to him to review changes made to the program by the Biden administration.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.