Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneyrescissionjudicial reviewliens
plaintiffattorneyrescissionliens

Related Cases

Riera-Riera v. Lynch
View Case »
Maynard v. CIA
View Case »
Tekle v. U.S.
View Case »
Palaguachi; U.S. v.
View Case »
Thomas v. Searls
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Regents of the Univ. of Cal.; Department of Homeland Security v.

Facts

In 2012, DHS announced the DACA program, allowing certain unauthorized aliens who entered the U.S. as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. In 2017, following a change in administration, DHS rescinded DACA based on the Attorney General's advice that it was unlawful. This decision was challenged in multiple district courts, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

In 2012, DHS announced the DACA program, allowing certain unauthorized aliens who entered the U.S. as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. In 2017, following a change in administration, DHS rescinded DACA based on the Attorney General's advice that it was unlawful. This decision was challenged in multiple district courts, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Issue

Whether the rescission of the DACA program by DHS was subject to judicial review under the APA and whether it was arbitrary and capricious.

The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.

Rule

The APA requires federal agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making and allows courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary or capricious.

The APA 'sets forth the procedures by which federal agencies are accountable to the public and their actions subject to review by the courts.' It requires agencies to engage in 'reasoned decisionmaking,' and directs that agency actions be 'set aside' if they are 'arbitrary' or 'capricious.'

Analysis

The Court determined that the rescission of DACA was not merely a passive non-enforcement policy but rather an active program that conferred immigration relief. The Acting Secretary's failure to provide a reasoned explanation for the termination and to consider the reliance interests of DACA recipients rendered the rescission arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

The Court determined that the rescission of DACA was not merely a passive non-enforcement policy but rather an active program that conferred immigration relief. The Acting Secretary's failure to provide a reasoned explanation for the termination and to consider the reliance interests of DACA recipients rendered the rescission arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious and thus vacated the lower court's judgment in part and affirmed in part, remanding the cases for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court concluded that the rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious and thus vacated the lower court's judgment in part and affirmed in part, remanding the cases for further proceedings.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, including the Regents of the University of California, prevailed because the Court found that DHS's rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

The plaintiffs, including the Regents of the University of California, prevailed because the Court found that DHS's rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

You must be