Term: 2019
Docket: 18-587
Department Of Homeland Security v. Regents Of The University Of California
- Pro
18-587 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DECISION BELOW: 908 F.3d 476 CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-588 AND 18-589 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 6/28/2019 QUESTION PRESENTED: This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable. 2. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18- 15128, 18-15133, 18-15134
The U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 2019 revolved around the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that protected young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allowed them to work legally in the United States. The court ruled against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a 5-4 decision, stating that DHS's action was "arbitrary and capricious" under federal law as it failed to provide an adequate reason for ending DACA. This ruling did not determine whether DACA or its rescission were sound policies but rather focused on procedural issues - specifically, DHS’s failure to consider important aspects before deciding to terminate it. Therefore, while this judgment maintained protections for approximately 700,000 so-called Dreamers temporarily, it left open potential future challenges by DHS if they provided more comprehensive reasoning.
In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Justice Thomas argued that DACA was illegal from its inception and therefore its rescission could not be reviewed by courts. He contended that executive agencies do not have free rein to grant lawful presence in violation of U.S law, thus making DACA an unlawful exercise of authority from the start. Furthermore, he asserted that since it is within DHS's discretion to end a program they believed to be unlawful, this decision should not fall under judicial review as per Heckler v Chaney precedent which states agency non-enforcement decisions are presumptively unreviewable unless Congress has indicated otherwise. The majority’s ruling allowing judicial review contradicts these principles according to him and sets a dangerous precedent where any policy change can potentially be subject to endless litigation.
