Wolf v. Vidal

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 28 Jun 2019

1. 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:
2. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable.
3. Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge to the Trump administration's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Plaintiffs argued that ending DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court held that while the Department of Homeland Security has authority to rescind DACA, its decision must comply with procedural requirements. The majority found that DHS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for terminating DACA, particularly in not considering reliance interests of those affected by its termination. Thus, the rescission was deemed unlawful as it did not meet APA standards.