There is one glaring, fundamental problem with their argument. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is a policy -- not law -- imposed by former President Barack Obama solely on his executive authority. At the time it was imposed, in 2012, Obama conceded that a future president could undo it as easily as Obama imposed it. There were serious questions about whether Obama had the authority to act -- many felt the policy was Congress's to make or not make -- but there is no question about a later president's authority to do away with it.


Some seasoned legal analysts are not impressed. "This lawsuit has no chance," noted John Yoo, the Berkeley law professor who served in the Bush Justice Department, in an email exchange. "The Equal Protection Clause has never been understood to prohibit the U.S. government from making distinctions in whom in chooses to allow into the country."

"Tellingly, the states spend pages collecting every thing that Trump has said about Mexicans, but they cannot provide a single citation to a single Supreme Court precedent that would support their position," Yoo added.

The attorneys general appear to have acted, not because they believe their legal argument is airtight, or perhaps even compelling, but because a similar argument worked with the courts that temporarily stopped the Trump travel executive order. So why not try it again with DACA?


Indeed, the arguments are similar: In the travel cases, states argued that even temporarily delaying entry of some people from some high-terrorism countries would harm the states economically. The DACA suit says the same thing. Indeed, as they did with the travel ban, the attorneys general devote a lot of space to describing the losses they claim they will suffer if DACA is rescinded.

Byron York: The Democrats' farfetched, laughable, thoroughly ridiculous and possibly successful DACA lawsuit