Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
140 S. Ct. 1891
| SCOTUS | 2020Background
- DACA created in 2012: DHS granted two-year deferred action, work authorization, and eligibility for certain federal benefits to qualifying childhood arrivals (about 700,000 recipients).
- DHS issued expanded DACA and DAPA in 2014 (DAPA would have covered ~4.3 million parents); Texas and other States obtained a nationwide injunction and Fifth Circuit affirmed; this litigation continued.
- In June–September 2017 the new Administration rescinded DAPA and, after an AG opinion finding DACA unlawful, Acting Sec. Duke issued a short memorandum rescinding DACA (stopping new applications; limited renewals).
- Multiple suits followed in three district courts (Northern California, EDNY, D.C.): courts held rescission reviewable and several granted nationwide relief or vacated the rescission; DHS issued a later Nielsen memorandum offering additional rationales.
- Supreme Court reviewed whether the rescission is reviewable under the APA/INA, whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious, and whether the Fifth Amendment equal protection/animus claim was plausibly pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability under the APA and scope of §701(a)(2)/Heckler v. Chaney | Rescission is reviewable because DACA created an affirmative program that conferred benefits and a formalized application/adjudication process | Rescission is an unreviewable non-enforcement decision akin to Chaney | Reviewable: DACA was more than passive non-enforcement (it conferred benefits and involved adjudications), so APA review applies |
| INA jurisdictional bars (§1252(b)(9) and §1252(g)) | Statutory limits do not apply because plaintiffs do not challenge removal proceedings | INA strips courts of jurisdiction over these sorts of claims | Not a bar: neither provision applies to this challenge to an agency policy rescission |
| Arbitrary and capricious under APA (adequacy of reasons) | Duke's memo failed to consider important aspects: retaining forbearance separate from benefits and reliance interests; Nielsen's later reasons are post hoc and cannot cure the defect | Agency followed AG legal conclusion that DACA was unlawful; agency could rescind and need not retain parts or evaluate reliance in particular ways | Vacatur/remand: Duke's rescission was arbitrary and capricious because she did not consider the option of retaining deferred action separate from benefits and failed to assess reliance; Nielsen's post hoc rationales largely cannot save the original action |
| Equal protection/animus claim | Rescission disproportionately harms Latinos and coupled with President Trump's statements and the unusual procedural history, supports an inference of discriminatory motive | Allegations are insufficient, statements are remote, disparate impact alone insufficient | Majority: claim insufficiently pleaded (no plausible inference of animus); Justice Sotomayor would have allowed further development on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (presumption of judicial review under APA)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency non-enforcement decisions generally unreviewable)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires reasoned analysis and consideration of viable alternatives)
- Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015) (review is limited to the grounds the agency invoked when it acted)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) (court may remand to allow agency to provide fuller contemporaneous explanation)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (agency must either uphold action on original grounds or make a new decision; courts may not accept new post hoc reasons)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (courts must guard against post hoc rationalizations)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (narrow reading of §1252(g) jurisdictional limits)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for inferring discriminatory purpose)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (deferential review of agency policy changes)