Introduction

The case of In re United States, et al. presents a critical examination of the procedural dynamics between the Executive Branch and the Judicial system, particularly in the context of administrative law and executive actions. Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 8, 2017, the case centers around the Trump Administration's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, challenging the majority's decision to grant a stay on the District Court's orders requiring the government to provide additional documentation related to the termination of DACA.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, the Government sought a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to stay its orders that required the Government to produce additional documents for the administrative record concerning the termination of DACA. The District Court had previously ordered the Government to add documents to ensure a comprehensive review of the decision to end DACA, affecting nearly 800,000 beneficiaries of the program.

The Supreme Court, through the majority opinion, granted the Government's application for a stay pending further consideration of its petition for a writ of mandamus or an alternative writ of certiorari. However, Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that the Government failed to meet the stringent criteria required for such an extraordinary remedy and that the court should not interfere with the District Court's procedural orders without compelling justification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Justice Breyer's dissent meticulously references several key precedents to support his argument against granting the stay:

• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971): Established that the "whole administrative record" includes all documents before the agency at the time of decision-making, not just those selected by the agency for judicial review.
• Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983): Emphasized the necessity of a complete administrative record for thorough judicial review, encompassing both supportive and contrary materials.
• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC (1986): Limited the scope to specific types of documents, such as records of closed deliberations within multi-member agencies, which Justice Breyer argues are not applicable to the DHS's termination of DACA.
• EX PARTE FAHEY (1947) and Cheney v. United States (2004): Defined a writ of mandamus as a "drastic and extraordinary" remedy and underscored the high threshold required for its issuance.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Breyer contends that the Government's interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) undermines the judicial review process by allowing agencies to unilaterally determine the scope of the administrative record. He argues that comprehensive judicial review necessitates access to all relevant documents that the agency considered, ensuring that decisions are made based on a complete understanding of the facts and legal considerations.

The dissent emphasizes that the APA mandates courts to review "the whole record," which encompasses all materials the agency considered, both favorable and unfavorable to the agency's decision. By attempting to restrict the administrative record to only those documents the Government chose to submit, the Government would hinder the court's ability to perform an "in-depth review" as required by law.

Furthermore, Justice Breyer rejects the Government's reliance on Cheney and Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (1985), arguing that these cases do not support limiting the administrative record or justify bypassing the District Court's orders without substantial justification.

Impact

Should the majority's decision stand, it could set a precedent allowing executive agencies greater control over the administrative records available for judicial review. This could potentially limit the courts' ability to thoroughly evaluate agency decisions, particularly in cases involving significant policy changes affecting large populations, such as DACA.

Justice Breyer's dissent advocates for maintaining robust judicial oversight to ensure that executive actions are subject to comprehensive review, thereby upholding the principles of administrative law and preventing unilateral agency overreach. This stance reinforces the necessity of transparency and accountability in executive decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling a government official or entity to perform a duty they are legally obligated to complete. It is considered an "extraordinary remedy," meaning it is only granted in exceptional circumstances where there is no other adequate legal remedy.

Administrative Record

The administrative record consists of all the documents and materials that were considered by an agency when making a decision. This includes evidence both supporting and opposing the agency's action. A complete administrative record is essential for courts to thoroughly review and assess the legality and rationality of agency decisions.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The Administrative Procedure Act is a federal law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It also sets standards for judicial review of agency actions, ensuring that agencies act within their authority and follow fair procedures.

Conclusion

Justice Breyer's dissent in In re United States, et al. underscores the critical importance of maintaining comprehensive administrative records for judicial review. By challenging the majority's decision to grant a stay, the dissenting opinion reinforces the necessity of transparency and thoroughness in executive actions, particularly those with far-reaching implications like the termination of DACA.

This dissent serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between executive agency discretion and the judiciary's role in overseeing and ensuring the legality of administrative decisions. Upholding a complete administrative record is fundamental to the integrity of the judicial review process, safeguarding against arbitrary or capricious decision-making by ensuring that all relevant information is available for scrutiny.