WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Thursday left President Barack Obama’s signature immigration program blocked, issuing an eight-word order that preserves a nationwide injunction and denies as many as 4 million undocumented parents the chance to seek temporary protection from deportation and work authorization.

The justices split 4 to 4 in United States v. Texas, automatically affirming the lower court without setting a national precedent. The one-sentence order—“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court”—reflects the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and returns immigration policy to a political and legal impasse.

The immediate effect is clear. The administration cannot implement Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, or an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The original DACA initiative, covering some immigrants brought to the United States as children, remains in force.

A procedural tie with consequences for millions

DAPA would allow qualifying parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for renewable, three-year periods of deferred action. It would not confer legal status, citizenship or a permanent right to remain. Successful applicants would receive temporary work authorization and a statement that immigration authorities had chosen to defer removal as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

The policy grew from a November 2014 memorandum by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. It instructed the department to focus limited enforcement resources on national-security threats, recent border crossers and serious criminals, while creating a process for parents with longstanding ties and no disqualifying record.

Texas and 25 other states sued, arguing that the administration had effectively created a major new program without using notice-and-comment rulemaking and had exceeded statutory and constitutional limits. A federal district judge in Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction before applications began. The Fifth Circuit upheld that order in a 2-to-1 decision, finding that Texas was likely to prevail under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court’s tie resolves none of the merits. It leaves the preliminary injunction intact while litigation may continue in the lower courts. An account of the arguments and case record by Oyez shows the justices divided over state standing, the scope of executive discretion and whether deferred action carried legal consequences requiring congressional authorization.

Obama calls the outcome “heartbreaking”

Obama said the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be” and described its impact on mixed-status families as heartbreaking. In remarks at the White House, he emphasized that the government would continue prioritizing felons and recent arrivals over parents who have lived in the country for years.

The president also tied the deadlock to the Senate’s refusal to consider Judge Merrick Garland, his nominee to fill Scalia’s seat. A full court might still have divided, but Thursday’s order demonstrates how an eight-member bench can leave nationally consequential disputes unresolved.

Texas officials welcomed the result as a check on executive power. Their position is that decisions affecting millions of people and imposing costs on states must come from Congress or proceed through legally required administrative steps. The administration responds that every presidency must decide whom to remove when appropriations permit only a fraction of the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants to be deported.

Families remain visible to enforcement but without relief

For potential applicants, the ruling preserves a particularly unstable status. Many are parents of children who are American citizens by birth. They work, pay taxes and participate in schools and communities, yet remain subject to removal and often cannot lawfully obtain employment. The program would not have erased that underlying status, but it would have allowed families to plan around a temporary reprieve.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association’s case documentation and guidance stresses that DAPA and expanded DACA never took effect and that people should not submit applications or fees. That warning is significant because immigration uncertainty often creates openings for fraudulent consultants who promise benefits that do not exist.

Employers and local governments also face consequences. Work authorization could move some employees from informal arrangements into regulated payrolls, while states argue that recognized presence can create costs through driver’s licenses and other services. Those competing effects were debated at length but remain unresolved by the Supreme Court’s order.

The election becomes the next immigration forum

Congress has not enacted a comprehensive immigration overhaul despite years of debate. A bipartisan bill passed the Senate in 2013 but stalled in the House. Obama turned to executive authority after concluding that legislation would not advance; opponents said that choice bypassed the constitutional role of lawmakers.

The court’s deadlock now places more weight on November. A future president could rescind or revise the deferred-action memorandum, defend it through continued litigation or pursue a different enforcement strategy. The next justice may also determine how the judiciary treats the boundary between executive discretion and administrative law.

Contemporary reporting in The Guardian captured the sharply different reactions: immigrant families saw years of uncertainty extended, while Republican officials described the result as a victory for separation of powers. Those responses reflect a dispute that is simultaneously legal, practical and moral.

Thursday’s order contains no reasoning and creates no binding Supreme Court rule beyond this case. Its brevity should not obscure its reach. Millions of people who were told they might step forward, pass background checks and receive a temporary measure of security remain outside the program. Their status will now be shaped by a lower-court lawsuit, an unfilled Supreme Court seat and an election in which immigration has become one of the country’s defining arguments.