# The Supreme Court 4–4 leaves the injunction against DAPA in place Date: 2016 ## The fact On 23 June 2016 the Supreme Court, 4–4, affirmed by an equally divided court the Fifth Circuit’s injunction against DAPA and the DACA expansion in United States v. Texas. The 20 November 2014 attempt remains a separate row. ## Context Judge Hanen’s February 2015 injunction sat as parent. Neighbouring DACA 2012 continued for the original class. He did not sit as the Court. Texas led petitioner states. Scalia’s death produced the 4–4. DAPA 20 November 2014 is the parent attempt. DACA 15 June 2012 remains a neighbour that continued. A United States president proposes, signs, vetoes, and directs the executive. Congress enacts statutes. The Federal Reserve, states, courts, and later presidents share later series. Office-holding is not authorship of every later outcome. Allegation is not a completed judgment. Legislative achievements require shared congressional attribution. He does not set the federal funds rate, write a state Medicaid waiver by himself, or convert a 2009 oath into a unique 2016 uninsured coefficient. A signature is not unique authorship of a House and Senate text. A troop order is not authorship of every later round. He is not president as of 27 August 2026. [Donald Trump](/people/mig-donald-trump) is president from 20 January 2025. [Joe Biden](/people/env-person-joe-biden) was president 2021–2025. ## Evidence and sources Supreme Court of the United States carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently. ## Significance The path is [protection of minority rights](/drivers/protection-of-minority-rights): a completed nationwide injunction left standing against parental deferred action. ## What is established and what is not Established: 23 June 2016 4–4 leaving the DAPA injunction in place, independently reported. Not established: that original 2012 DACA uniquely fell that day — it did not — or a unique later removal coefficient from the 4–4 hour. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. Texas won the injunction. He had issued the parent memos.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies The Supreme Court 4–4 leaves the injunction against DAPA in place, not a later speech about The Supreme Court 4–4 leaves the injunction against DAPA in place. Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. The Supreme Court 4–4 leaves the injunction against DAPA in place on 2016-06-23 is not a licence to treat every later Supreme Court of the United States communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average The Supreme Court 4–4 leaves the injunction against DAPA in place into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to The Court split. Texas won the injunction. He had issued the parent memos. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series. ## People - Barack Obama: https://factrail.ai/people/barack-obama ## Drivers - Protection of Minority Rights: https://factrail.ai/drivers/protection-of-minority-rights - Migration-policy restrictiveness and border control: https://factrail.ai/drivers/mig-policy-restrictiveness ## Sources - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration-idUSKCN0Z90R0 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-674.htm ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/us-obama-dapa-blocked-2016