About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 18, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govdjzw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Resarh Service Supreme Court: DACA Rescission Violated the APA June 18, 2020 On June 18, 2020, in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court held in a five-to-four decision that the reasoning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offered in support of its decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative was inadequate and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court's decision means that, at least for the time being, the DACA initiative will remain in place, offering the prospect of continued relief from removal and work authorization to the approximately 650,000 current DACA recipients and apparently also to eligible childhood arrivals who have not previously enrolled in the program. The decision, however, is limited in particular respects. It does not prevent the Trump Administration from taking new action to rescind DACA-indeed, the decision reaffirms that the Administration has power to do so, so long as it supplies adequate justification under the APA. The decision also does not address whether DACA itself is legal; instead, it goes no further than to hold that, in rescinding DACA, DHS failed to think through important issues about the available policy options and the interests of current DACA recipients. Background The Obama Administration created DACA in 2012. The program allows certain, unlawfully present non- U.S. nationals (aliens) who arrived in the United States as children to obtain deferred action (i.e., an assurance that they will not face removal) and work authorization, among other benefits, in renewable two-year periods. To be eligible for DACA, aliens must meet certain criteria, including that they came to the United States under the age of 16, have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, and meet other requirements related to education and lack of criminal history. On September 5, 2017, acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke issued a memorandum announcing her decision to rescind DACA. The Duke memorandum relied upon a letter from then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions concluding that DACA was illegal-specifically, that it lacked proper statutory authority, was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch, and would likely be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation. The Duke memorandum and the Attorney General letter also relied upon Texas v. Un'ited States, a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Texas held Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10497 CF-S LegM Sideba Prepaimed for Mernbei-s and Comrm ttees of Coqgr ss ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most