The DACA Case (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California)

In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (defendant) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program allowed noncitizens who had come to the United States as children to apply to remain temporarily in the United States. Program recipients also became eligible to work and obtain certain federal benefits. DHS then created the related program Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which expanded DACA’s benefits to millions more people. Under President Donald Trump, DHS rescinded both programs, claiming that they were illegal. The rescission order did not indicate that DHS had (1) considered rescinding only parts of the programs or (2) taken into account the reliance interests created by the programs, such as considering the hardships that recission would cause for program recipients who had already started careers and enrolled in colleges in the expectation that they would not be deported. The regents of the University of California and others (collectively, the regents) (plaintiffs) filed three separate lawsuits, contending that rescinding the programs violated (1) the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and (2) the Equal Protection Clause. The regents largely prevailed at the trial-court level. In one case, the district court gave DHS an opportunity to further explain its decision. DHS issued a new memorandum providing new policy arguments and rationales for the rescission decision. The United States Supreme Court consolidated the cases and granted certiorari.