In Re United States
583 U.S. 29
SCOTUS2017Background
- In Sept. 2017 DHS announced termination of DACA, effective March 5, 2018; ~800,000 beneficiaries affected.
- Respondents sued in N.D. Cal. under the APA challenging termination; merits not decided below.
- District Court ordered the Government to produce additional documents to "complete" the administrative record and to permit discovery; set deadlines beginning Dec. 22, 2017.
- Government sought emergency relief in this Court: a stay of the district-court orders and a writ of mandamus directing that the agency alone determine the administrative record.
- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted a stay pending disposition of the Government’s mandamus/certiorari petition; Justice Breyer dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the administrative record | Review must be limited to the record the agency submits; district court erred ordering supplementation | "Whole record" under APA §706 requires all materials before decisionmakers, including contrary evidence | Stay granted; but Breyer dissents, arguing courts can order supplementation and agency may not unilaterally define the record |
| Mandamus standard | Extraordinary relief is warranted to prevent alleged district-court overreach | Mandamus is drastic; Government has not met heavy burden for extraordinary relief | Stay granted pending petition; Breyer: mandamus not appropriate here |
| Claims of privilege for particular documents | Some ordered documents (e.g., White House Counsel memo) are privileged and should be withheld | District Court reviewed and found many documents non-privileged; Government must assert and justify privilege and may submit in camera | Government may withhold documents only after particularized privilege showing; district court may review in camera (Breyer's view) |
| Burden/timing of compliance and discovery | Reviewing large volume (≈21,000) under short deadlines is unduly burdensome; discovery orders are premature | Large administrative records are common; district court deadlines adjustable; Government did not seek extensions below | Court granted stay pending review; Breyer: Government failed to show relief unavailable in other courts and should not obtain mandamus for scheduling complaints |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus and White House privilege guidance)
- Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 (1947) (mandamus as extraordinary remedy)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) ("whole record" review under APA)
- United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941) (limits on probing decisionmakers' mental processes)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires consideration of materials contrary to agency's position)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (judicial review focuses on the administrative record in existence at time of decision)
- Thompson v. Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1989) (administrative record includes documents directly or indirectly considered by decisionmakers)
- San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (closed deliberative records of multimember agencies treated as mental-processes protection)
- Bar MK Ranches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735 (10th Cir. 1993) (agency may not unilaterally determine administrative record)