In 2012, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (defendant) announced the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals Program (DACA), allowing noncitizens who arrived in the country as children to apply for legal work status and deferred action to prevent deportation. President Trump’s administration sought to rescind DACA as illegal from its inception. Multiple states, municipalities, organizations, and DACA recipients (plaintiffs) challenged the rescission as arbitrary and capricious, and violative of substantive due process and equal protection. The government argued that the judicial branch had no power to review the fundamentally legal determination that DACA was unlawful, and that the recipients had no protected substantive due-process interests. The district court granted a preliminary injunction; dismissed one due-process claim based on recipients’ having a protected interest in DACA designation and renewals, but not the second based on using application information to deport applicants; and found the complaint stated an equal-protection violation.