Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Issues
Is the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy judicially reviewable, and did DHS violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements in rescinding this policy?
This case consolidates three lawsuits, together claiming that the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) policy is unlawful. Before the Supreme Court, DHS argues that the DACA rescission is unreviewable agency action, that it complied with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) requirements, and that DACA is unlawful. In response, various states, individual DACA recipients, and organizations argue that DHS did not consider all data, failed to offer a sufficient justification for its decision, and improperly relied on the conclusion that DACA was unlawful. The case’s outcome will have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of current DACA recipients and their communities, immigration enforcement policies, and the economy.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. DHS at 21.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Michael D. Shear & Adam Liptak: It’s Now the Supreme Court’s Turn to Try to Resolve the Fate of the Dreamers, New York Times (June 28, 2019).
- Richard Wolf: Supreme Court to Hear Trump Administration Plea to End DACA Program for Immigrants Who Came as Children, USA Today (June 28, 2019).