The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday a proposed rule the Biden administration hopes would help keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program alive.

The proposed rule, set to be published Tuesday, aims to clear up potential legal issues raised by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen back in July. His ruling found the DACA program to be illegal, saying the Obama administration overstepped its authority and did not properly seek feedback when introducing DACA back in 2012.

“DHS is complying with the July 16, 2021 order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which prohibits DHS from granting initial DACA requests,” the department said in a press release. “DHS continues to accept and process DACA renewal requests based on the terms of DACA policy, as permitted by the court’s order.”

According to the department, the Biden administration has appealed the Texas court ruling.

The Obama administration created the DACA program via a memo. It was intended as a stopgap measure until Congress could pass a more permanent measure, but that never happened. President Donald Trump tried to rescind the DACA memo and end the program, but the Supreme Court concluded he did not go about it properly.

Shoring up the DACA program through a formal rule is a more rigorous process than the original memo. However, it is still not formal legislation.

Currently, Congressional Democrats are struggling to include immigration provisions in President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” agenda.

“The Biden-Harris Administration continues to take action to protect Dreamers and recognize their contributions to this country,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said. “However, only Congress can provide permanent protection. I support the inclusion of immigration reform in the reconciliation bill and urge Congress to act swiftly to provide Dreamers the legal status they need and deserve.”

Earlier this month, the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian said the immigration provisions couldn’t stay in the bill because it violated the chamber’s budget rules.