The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday refused to lift a temporary block on President Barack Obama's immigration plan that would shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

In a lengthy ruling, the court sided with the Texas district court that blocked the president's implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy. Twenty-six states led by Texas sued the Obama administration over the executive orders. Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod sided with the states and denied the federal government's request for a stay so the orders could move forward.

"Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay," the ruling stated.

The executive orders would provide an estimated 4 million undocumented immigrants with a temporary reprieve, shielding them from deportation and allowing them to obtain work permits, among other documentation. The states argued the government did not have the authority to implement such orders alone.

The states had to meet four criteria: "whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and where the public interest lies."

The panel ruled the costs of providing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants would be too great an injury on the states and invalidated the government's argument against it. The government said the benefits of tax income and decreased welfare expenses would offset the costs.

"That approach is appropriate, if at all, where the costs and benefits are of the same type and arise from the same transaction because the plaintiff has suffered no real injury," the ruling stated, but deemed the administration's argument unrelated.

The majority concluded: "The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction, and even if that were not so, in light of the fact that the first three factors favor the states and that the injunction merely maintains the status quo while the court considers the issue, a stay pending appeal is far from justified."

The one dissenting voice on the panel, Judge Stephen Higginson, argued the plaintiffs and the district court labeled the order as a program that would give legislative powers to the administration. However, Judge Higginson found the orders to be an extension of the current system.

The immigrants affected were not legalized but "became a lower removal priority," meaning they could still be deported but were not as important as criminals. The discretion, he argued, remained with the Department of Homeland Security.

Judge Higginson added that the district court did not focus on the president's memorandum "but instead on an embellishment of it set against a perceived imperative to remove all illegal immigrants."

He argues the district court misread the executive order and disputes the claim the orders would legalize undocumented immigrants as President Obama throughout his administration has been deporting record numbers of immigrants.

"The parties have offered argument and submissions, but to date without adversarial and evidentiary testing, disagreeing about consequences that could follow from executive adherence to the November 20 memorandum," Judge Higginson wrote.

He concluded the federal government must decide "the order in which non-citizens without documentation must be removed from the United States."

"The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs," he added referring to the scores of legislators and localities, the majority of which are Republican, who sided with the original 26 states.

Earlier in May, 113 Republican lawmakers signed an amicus brief in support of the case against President Obama's executive order.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who represents one of the states suing the administration, welcomed the news.

"The separation of powers and checks and balances remain the law of the land, and this decision is a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America," he said in a statement.

"Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy. The president's attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws. We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama Administration."

The National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, also responded to the court's decision, criticizing the panel's ruling in a statement.

"Although we are unquestionably disappointed in today's ruling, this is not the end of the road but a delay in what we believe will be an eventual victory," said Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, Deputy Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation, NCLR.

"Our community remains steadfast in our commitment to keeping hardworking families together. Not only will these executive actions bring relief to millions of American families, they are in the best interest of this nation's economy and national security."