Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Supreme Court of the United States · No. 18-587, 591 U.S. 1 (2020)
The Supreme Court held 5–4 that DHS's 2017 decision to rescind DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act, because DHS failed to consider reliance interests built up by DACA recipients over the program's several years and failed to consider a narrower rescission (ending only work authorization while keeping deferred action).
Decided
2020-06-18
Summary
The Supreme Court held 5–4 that DHS's 2017 decision to rescind DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act, because DHS failed to consider reliance interests built up by DACA recipients over the program's several years and failed to consider a narrower rescission (ending only work authorization while keeping deferred action). The rescission was set aside on procedural grounds — the Court didn't rule on whether DACA itself is lawful.
Current status
This ruling kept DACA alive procedurally in 2020, but didn't resolve DACA's underlying legality — that question is what Texas v. United States (above) is about. The two rulings answer different questions and shouldn't be conflated.
Related: I-821D DACA — Renewals Only, Litigation Status Genuinely Unresolved
Read the primary source ↗Source: Justia: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020)
CaseWhy Plus
If you're tracking a case, get an answer grounded in this specific ruling and your case's own facts.
General information about a public court ruling, not legal advice or a diagnosis of any specific case. For guidance specific to your case, talk to a licensed immigration attorney.