"In a brief filed in federal court in Texas, Grewal said New Jersey should be permitted to intervene in the case because ending DACA would harm the state and its residents. New Jersey, Grewal argues, has a strong interest in supporting DACA recipients, who contribute to the state economy, including through state and local taxes.

The state would lose about $19 million per year in tax revenues if the DACA program ended, according to the brief."

This is exactly the case with me, though my deferred action is not Daca, as I am responsible for multiple programs that affect thousands of patients.

Why didn't they use the harm to individual states argument with Dapa to prevent that case from setting precedent, not to mention to protect so many individuals??