A group of legal scholars and immigration-based law instructors recently came up with a statement, declaring that the Texas-based judge’s decision to block the President’s decision “deeply flawed.”

The group argued on television that the executive action programs would have protected “thousands” from the scepter of deportation while providing them permission to work, which would have been within the “legal authority of the federal administration”.

Some of the arguments made by the group included one which said that there was strong legal authority for the deferred action in general, especially for DACA and DAPA, which were recognized in law as a form of prosecutable discretion, and another one which said that the Texan judge had confused deferred action with work permission, and that he was mistaken to suggest that a person could not obtain legal presence through the DACA and DAPA programs. The statement also said that the immigration system had more than 20 forms of prosecutorial discretion that were used by the Department of Homeland Security.

The statement signed by the group of scholars and instructors were similar to others that were signed by the same people when the President’s immigration reform actions were being debated.