News & Insights

Facts of the Case:

• DACA, introduced in 2012, allowed certain young, undocumented immigrants (“Dreamers”) to apply for deferred deportation and work permits.
• In 2017, the Attorney General advised DHS to rescind DACA, citing its alleged illegality based on a prior case that invalidated a related program (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, DAPA).
• Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke issued a memo terminating DACA without providing a detailed analysis of the policy’s effects or addressing potential alternatives.
• Lawsuits were filed claiming that the rescission violated the APA by being “arbitrary and capricious,” as DHS failed to adequately explain its decision or consider important factors, including the reliance interests of DACA recipients.

Court’s Analysis:

The Supreme Court focused on two key issues:

• Procedural Adequacy: Did DHS provide a reasoned explanation for its decision?
• Scope of Review: Was DHS’s action judicially reviewable under the APA?

The Court emphasized that rescinding an administrative program requires thoughtful consideration of the program’s impact, reliance interests (e.g., DACA recipients building lives around the program), and alternative solutions.

DHS’s decision was found inadequate because:

• It failed to consider the possibility of preserving the forbearance of deportation while removing benefits such as work authorization.
• It did not weigh the significant reliance interests of individuals and communities who had structured their lives around DACA protections.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that DHS’s rescission of DACA violated the APA. While the Court acknowledged that DHS had the authority to terminate DACA, it determined the agency had not provided sufficient reasoning for its action. The decision was vacated, and the case was remanded to DHS to reconsider its approach with a more thorough explanation.