Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawAdministrative Procedure ActImmigrationJudicial ReviewAPAarbitrary and capriciousreasoned decisionmaking

Facts

DHS created DACA in 2012 to allow certain unauthorized aliens brought to the United States as children to receive two-year deferred action, eligibility for work authorization, and related federal benefits. In 2017, after the Attorney General advised that DACA was unlawful because it shared legal defects with DAPA, Acting Secretary Duke issued a memorandum terminating DACA and winding it down. Her memorandum relied on the Attorney General's legal conclusion and did not separately discuss retaining deferred-action forbearance without benefits or the reliance interests of DACA recipients. Secretary Nielsen later issued a memorandum elaborating additional legal and policy reasons, but she stated she was declining to disturb Duke's rescission and was providing further explanation for that original action.

Issue

Whether DHS's rescission of DACA was reviewable under the APA and within federal court jurisdiction, and if reviewable, whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious because DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation. The Court also considered whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the rescission violated equal protection.

Rule

Agency action is presumptively reviewable under the APA unless a statute precludes review or the action is committed to agency discretion by law, a narrow exception. An agency rescinding a policy must defend its action on the contemporaneous reasons it gave when it acted; later memoranda may elaborate on original reasons but may not supply new ones unless the agency takes new action. Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, an agency must consider important aspects of the problem, including alternatives that remain within its discretion and serious reliance interests engendered by the prior policy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Coastal Resources Bureau in Charleston created a program allowing certain undocumented fishing workers to apply online for two-year deferred inspection status. If approved, applicants receive formal approval notices and become eligible under existing regulations for temporary commercial fishing permits and related federal insurance subsidies. Two years later, the Bureau ends the program, and recipients sue under the APA.

What is the strongest argument that the rescission is reviewable under the APA?

Explanation. APA review is presumptively available unless a statute precludes review or the action is committed to agency discretion by law, and that exception is narrow. Where an agency has created a structured program with applications, adjudications, formal approvals, and eligibility for affirmative benefits, the action is not simply a passive refusal to enforce. Under the majority's reasoning, such a program provides a focus for judicial review, so its rescission is reviewable.