"We asserted then -- and still believe now -- that Princeton will suffer the loss of critical members of its community if the administration's action is left to stand," said Chang.
Three U.S. district courts -- in the District of Columbia, California and New York -- issued injunctions and required the program to continue accepting DACA renewal applications. While that offered a sliver of hope to Perales Sanchez and others, it wasn't a solution for the millions of people who are undocumented.
"There are still folks that are being deported, there are still folks that are in cages. Regardless of the small, little victories, it's still so many losses," Perales Sanchez said.
The legal dispute continued, with Trump administration appealing the courts' decisions and asking the Supreme Court to intervene.
"I don't think I ever imagined I'd be inside the Supreme Court for a case -- let alone for one that I brought forward," Perales Sanchez said.
The issues at hand in the case that now includes hers -- Trump, President of U.S. v. NAACP -- are whether the lower courts had the authority to review the Department of Homeland Security's decision to end DACA in the first place and whether that decision was lawful, according to the court docket.
"It is DHS policy not to comment on pending litigation," said Vic Brabble, a department spokesman. The Justice Department also declined to comment.
In a brief submitted ahead of the case, the Justice Department argued the government's decision to end DACA was justified because the creation of the program violated federal immigration law.
"At best, DACA is legally questionable; at worst, it is illegal," the brief states.
More than 140 businesses, including major companies such as Facebook, Starbucks, Target and Verizon signed on to an amicus brief last month in support of DACA.