Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
| Decision Date | 18 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-588, No. 18-589,No. 18-587,18-587 |
| Citation | 140 S.Ct. 1891,207 L.Ed.2d 353 |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Petitioners v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.; Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al.; and Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Petitioners v. Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney, General, Jeffrey B. Wall, Deputy Solicitor General, Hashim M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney, General, Jonathan Y. Ellis, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Mark B. Stern, Abby C. Wright, Thomas Pulham, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Benjamin M. Eidelson, Cambridge, MA, Lindsay C. Harrison, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Thomas J. Perrelli, Matthew E. Price, Ishan K. Bhabha, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents The Trustees of Princeton University, Microsoft Corporation, and Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez.
Joseph M. Sellers, Julie S. Selesnick, Cohen Milstein Sellers, & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, for Respondents NAACP; American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Bradford M. Berry, NAACP, Baltimore, MD, for Respondent NAACP.
Ramona E. Romero, Wesley Markham, Princeton, NJ, for Respondent The Trustees of Princeton University.
Cynthia L. Randall, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, for Respondent Microsoft Corporation.
David J. Strom, American Federation, of Teachers, Washington, DC, for Respondent American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.
Peter J. Ford, United Food &, Commercial Workers, International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Washington, DC, for Respondent United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, Michael L. Newman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Samuel P. Siegel, Joshua Patashnik, Deputy Solicitors General, Shubhra Shivpuri, James F. Zahradka II, Deputy Attorneys General, San Francisco, CA, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General of Maine, Susan P. Herman, Deputy Attorney General, Augusta, ME, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Steven M. Sullivan, Solicitor General, Leah J. Tulin, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, Keith Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, Liz Kramer, Solicitor General, Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for Respondents.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Ethan D. Dettmer, Jonathan N. Soleimani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Judy London, Public Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Theodore B. Olson, Stuart F. Delery, Matthew S. Rozen, Andrew J. Wilhelm, Suria M. Bahadue, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for DACA Recipient Respondents in No. 18-587.
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA, Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, Luis Cortes Romero, Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation, Center, PLLC, Kent, WA, Leah M. Litman, University of Michigan, Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, Michael J. Wishnie, Muneer I. Ahmad, Marisol Orihuela, Karen C. Tumlin, Cooperating Attorney, Jerome N. Frank, Legal Services Organization, New Haven, CT, Amy S. Taylor, Paige Austin, Brooklyn, NY, Trudy S. Rebert, National Immigration Law Center, Jackson Heights, NY, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Mayra B. Joachin, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, Scott Foletta, Jackson Heights, NY, for DACA Recipient Respondents and, Make the Road New York in No. 18-589.
Stacey M. Leyton, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents County of, Santa Clara and Service Employees, International Union Local 521 in, No. 18-587.
James R. Williams, Greta S. Hansen, Laura S. Trice, Marcelo Quiñones, Office Of The County Counsel, County of Santa Clara, San Jose, CA, for Respondent County of, Santa Clara in No. 18-587.
Jeffrey M. Davidson, David Watnick, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA, Charles F. Robinson, Margaret Wu, Sonya Sanchez, University of California, Office of the General Counsel, Oakland, CA, Robert A. Long, Lanny A. Breuer, Mark H. Lynch, Alexander A. Berengaut, Megan A. Crowley, Ivano M. Ventresca, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for The Regents of the University of California, and Janet Napolitano.
Justin T. Berger, Brian Danitz, Tamarah Prevost, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Burlingame, CA, for City of San José.
Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy Solicitor General, Andrew W. Amend, Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, David S. Frankel, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY, for Respondents.
In the summer of 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. That program allows certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief are also eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.
Five years later, the Attorney General advised DHS to rescind DACA, based on his conclusion that it was unlawful. The Department's Acting Secretary issued a memorandum terminating the program on that basis. The termination was challenged by affected individuals and third parties who alleged, among other things, that the Acting Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on her decision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated.
In June 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum announcing an immigration relief program for "certain young people who were brought to this country as children." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 18–587, p. 97a (App. to Pet. for Cert.). Known as DACA, the program applies to childhood arrivals who were under age 31 in 2012; have continuously resided here since 2007; are current students, have completed high school, or are honorably discharged veterans; have not been convicted of any serious crimes; and do not threaten national security or public safety. Id. , at 98a. DHS concluded that individuals who meet these criteria warrant favorable treatment under the immigration laws because they "lacked the intent to violate the law," are "productive" contributors to our society, and "know only this country as home." Id. , at 98a–99a.
"[T]o prevent [these] low priority individuals from being removed from the United States," the DACA Memorandum instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement to "exercise prosecutorial discretion[ ] on an individual basis ... by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal." Id. , at 100a. In addition, it directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to "accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action," id. , at 101a, as permitted under regulations long predating DACA's creation, see 8 CFR § 274a.12(c)(14) (2012) (); 46 Fed. Reg. 25080–25081 (1981) (similar). Pursuant to other regulations, deferred action recipients are considered "lawfully present" for purposes of, and therefore eligible to receive, Social Security and Medicare benefits. See 8 CFR § 1.3(a)(4)(vi) ; 42 CFR § 417.422(h) (2012).
In November 2014, two years after DACA was promulgated, DHS issued a memorandum announcing that it would expand DACA eligibility by removing the age cap, shifting the date-of-entry requirement from 2007 to 2010, and extending the deferred action and work authorization period to three years. App. to Pet. for Cert. 106a–107a. In the same memorandum, DHS created a new, related program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. That program would have authorized deferred action for up to 4.3 million parents whose children were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. These parents were to enjoy the same forbearance, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients.
Before the DAPA Memorandum was implemented, 26 States, led by Texas, filed suit in the Southern District of Texas. The States contended that DAPA and the DACA expansion violated the APA's notice and comment requirement, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Executive's duty under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The District Court found that the States were likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of their claims and entered a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of both DAPA and the DACA expansion. See Texas v. United States , 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 677–678 (2015).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134, 188 (2015). In opposing the injunction, the Government argued that the DAPA Memorandum reflected an unreviewable exercise of the Government's enforcement discretion. The Fifth Circuit majority disagreed. It reasoned that the deferred action described in the DAPA Memorandum was "much more than nonenforcement: It would affirmatively confer ‘lawful presence’ and associated benefits on a class of unlawfully present aliens." Id. , at 166. From this, the majority concluded that the creation of the DAPA program was not an unreviewable action "committed to agency discretion by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Small Bus. Admin. v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe
...judgment or did not consider all and only the relevant factors when issuing it. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1905, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020). Clear error in judgment exists if the SBA's explanation for the bankruptcy bar runs coun......
-
Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
...U.S. 226, 241, 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897).6 Plaintiffs also assert that Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) established that the government must take into account "legitimate reliance" int......
-
Pulido v. Cuccinelli
...of that discretion, there is ‘law to apply’ under § 701(a)(2)"). See also Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1906, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) (concluding that USCIS took affirmative action to create adjudications, thereby......
-
People v. Vivar
...who arrived as children, attended schools, and found work here. (See Dep't of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of California (2020) ––– U.S. ––––, , 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (conc. & dis. opn. of Kavanaugh, J.).) Whether they become citizens or not, these immigrants’ ties to our country are......
-
NONCITIZENS' ACCESS TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS: THE NARROWING OF s. 1252(b) (9) POST-JENNINGS.
...of the Univ. 9th Challenging DACA of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't rescission of Homeland Sec, 908 F.3d 476, 504 n.19 (9th Cir. 2018), affd in part 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1907 (2020) Inland Empire-Immigrant 9th Challenging DACA Youth rescission Collective v. Nielsen, No. 17-2048, 2018 WL 4998230, *12-16 (CD......
-
Review of the Year 2020 in Family Law: COVID-19, Zoom, and Family Law in a Pandemic
...here did not satisfy strict scrutiny. 13 3. Id. at 1754. 4. Id. at 1737. 5. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1901, 1903, 1906 (2020). 6. Id. at 1907–15. 7. Id. at 1916; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 8. June Med. Servs. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2113 (2020) (......
-
Disparate Limbo: How Administrative Law Erased Antidiscrimination.
...opinion by Chief Justice Roberts hinged on arbitrary-and-capricious review. Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1898-99 (2020). For a longer discussion of the role the APA played in Roberts' decision, and the ways in which the decision can be characteriz......
-
THE "ESSENTIAL" FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.
...See generally id. (232.) Dep't of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019); Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891,1915 (233.) See supra note 186 (discussing Sixth Circuit precedent). (234.) See supra notes 208-226 and accompanying text. (235.) William Baude......