Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC.
924 F.3d 684
4th Cir.2019Background
- DACA (2012) allowed certain noncitizens brought to the U.S. as children to receive renewable two‑year deferred action and employment authorization; applicants provided biometrics and personal information under information‑sharing assurances that could be changed.
- The administration rescinded DACA by memorandum (Sept. 5, 2017), phasing out most new grants and conditioning continued use of applicant data; rescission issued without notice-and-comment.
- Plaintiffs (individuals and organizations) sued alleging APA violations (procedural and substantive), Fifth Amendment due process/equal protection claims, and equitable estoppel as to information‑sharing practices; district court granted partial summary judgment to the government but ordered injunctive relief on estoppel re: applicant data.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit addressed justiciability (including INA jurisdictional bars), APA reviewability (§701), whether notice-and-comment was required, and whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious; it also reviewed the estoppel ruling.
- The Fourth Circuit held claims are reviewable, rescission did not require notice-and-comment, but rescission was arbitrary and capricious for failing to provide an adequate reasoned explanation and for not addressing reliance interests; it reversed the estoppel injunction and declined to resolve constitutional claims under avoidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INA §1252(g) bars review | §1252(g) does not bar review of a policy rescission that is not a decision to commence/adjudicate/execute removal | §1252(g) precludes review as a "no deferred action" decision tied to removal enforcement | Held: §1252(g) does not bar review — rescission is not one of the three discrete actions listed |
| Whether INA §1252(b)(9) bars review | §1252(b)(9) inapplicable because challenge is not review of a final removal order | §1252(b)(9) requires review only in consolidated review of final removal orders | Held: §1252(b)(9) does not bar review here |
| Whether agency action is committed to discretion (Heckler/Chaney) | Rescission is a general policy change reviewing statutory interpretation and is reviewable | Rescission is an enforcement discretion (nonenforcement) decision presumptively unreviewable | Held: Rescission is reviewable — Chaney presumption inapplicable to general policy change based on legal interpretation |
| Whether notice-and-comment was required under APA §553 | Rescission is a substantive legislative rule affecting rights and required notice-and-comment | Rescission is a general statement of policy exempt from notice-and-comment | Held: Rescission was a general statement of policy; notice-and-comment not required |
| Whether rescission was arbitrary and capricious (5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)) | Rescission lacked adequate explanation, failed to identify statutory conflict, and failed to address reliance interests of hundreds of thousands | Agency relied on Attorney General letter and litigation risk; rescission reflected view DACA was unlawful | Held: Vacated — agency failed to provide reasoned explanation and address reliance interests; rescission arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether equitable estoppel barred use of DACA applicant data | Plaintiffs relied on explicit representations that data would not be used for immigration enforcement | Government warned data could be used for enforcement and that policies could be modified or rescinded | Held: Estoppel fails — express disclaimers preclude reasonable reliance; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (discusses deferred action and scope of INA jurisdictional bar)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency non‑enforcement decisions presumptively unreviewable)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard; agency must provide reasoned explanation)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) (agency must provide adequate reasons when changing policy)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (broad discretion in immigration enforcement)
- I.C.C. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987) (reason for action does not convert an otherwise unreviewable enforcement decision into reviewable action)
- Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (challenge to DAPA/DACA expansion; relevant precedent cited by parties)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) (addresses reviewability and merits of DACA rescission)