Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtChief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV.
Citation140 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.
Decision Date18 June 2020
Docket Number No. 18-588, No. 18-589,No. 18-587

140 S.Ct. 1891
207 L.Ed.2d 353

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.

No. 18-587
No. 18-588
No. 18-589

Supreme Court of the United States.

Argued November 12, 2019
Decided June 18, 2020


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.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV.

140 S.Ct. 1901

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.

I

A

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

140 S.Ct. 1902

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) (permitting work authorization for deferred action recipients who establish "economic necessity"); 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 ,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
364 practice notes
  • Texas v. Biden, 21-10806
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2021
    ...they are post hoc rationalizations under the demanding standard announced by the Supreme Court. See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1904-05, 1907-09 (2020) (describing a multiple-memorandum agency process strikingly similar to the process here and concluding the later m......
  • Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 2020-2157
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • July 13, 2021
    ...statements’ probative of the decision at issue." Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1916, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) (plurality opinion) (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. , 429 U.S. 252, 268, 97 S.Ct. 555, ......
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ...Sec. , 908 F.3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted), rev'd in part, vacated in part No. 18-587, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1891, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 WL 3271746 (U.S. June 18, 2020). However, there is "no general requirement that an injunction affect only the parties in t......
  • Uranga v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Civil Action No. 20-0521 (ABJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 28, 2020
    ...that may be part of the deportation process." Id. ; see Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1907, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) (reaffirming that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is narrow and does not cover "all claims arising from deportation proceedin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
354 cases
  • Texas v. Biden, 21-10806
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2021
    ...they are post hoc rationalizations under the demanding standard announced by the Supreme Court. See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1904-05, 1907-09 (2020) (describing a multiple-memorandum agency process strikingly similar to the process here and concluding the later m......
  • Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 2020-2157
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • July 13, 2021
    ...statements’ probative of the decision at issue." Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1916, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) (plurality opinion) (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. , 429 U.S. 252, 268, 97 S.Ct. 555, ......
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ...Sec. , 908 F.3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted), rev'd in part, vacated in part No. 18-587, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1891, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 WL 3271746 (U.S. June 18, 2020). However, there is "no general requirement that an injunction affect only the parties in t......
  • Uranga v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Civil Action No. 20-0521 (ABJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 28, 2020
    ...that may be part of the deportation process." Id. ; see Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1907, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020) (reaffirming that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) is narrow and does not cover "all claims arising from deportation proceedin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • ADMINISTRATIVE SABOTAGE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...L.J. 104 (2015). (336.) See id. at 112. (337.) See id. at 222-24. (338.) See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1911-14 (339.) 21 U.S.C. [section] 841(b)(1)(A). (340.) Jeremy Berke, Shayanne Gal & Yeji Jesse Lee, Marijuana Legalization Is Sweeping t......
  • Modern Vacancies, Ancient Remedy: How the De Facto Officer Doctrine Applies to Vacancies Act Violations (And How It Should).
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...repeal two existing regulations for each new one promulgated). (236.) See, e.g., Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1916 (2020) (holding that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to wind down its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ......
  • Agency Control and Internally Binding Norms.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 4, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...an action that was later struck down by the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (29.) See, e.g., Memorandum from Att'y Gen. to Dep't of Just. Components, Prohibition on Improper Guidance Documents 1 (Nov. 16, 2017), ht......
  • The Legal and Administrative Risks of Climate Regulation
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 51-6, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...not alter the standard of judicial review established by law”). 63. See Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020) (“When an agency changes course, as [the Department of Homeland Security] DHS did here, it must ‘be cognizant that longstanding p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT