Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California(en inglés)
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).
Decidido
2020-06-18
Resumen
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.
Estado actual
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.
Relacionado: I-821D DACA — Renewals Only, Litigation Status Genuinely Unresolved
Leer la fuente primaria ↗Fuente: Justia: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020)
CaseWhy Plus
Si estás rastreando un caso, obtén una respuesta fundamentada en este fallo específico y en los hechos de tu caso.
Información general sobre un fallo judicial público, no asesoría legal ni un diagnóstico de ningún caso específico. Para orientación específica sobre su caso, consulte a un abogado de inmigración con licencia.