Introduction

In re UNITED STATES, et al. (138 S. Ct. 371), decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 8, 2017, addresses critical issues surrounding the administrative review process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This case arose in the context of the government's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The primary parties involved include the United States Government and nearly 800,000 individuals who benefited from DACA.

The central issues in this case revolve around the extent of the administrative record required for judicial review of agency decisions and the appropriateness of granting a stay on lower court orders demanding the completion of this record. The Supreme Court's decision to grant a stay pending the disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of mandamus sets a significant precedent in administrative law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay concerning the District Court's orders requiring the completion of the administrative record related to the termination of DACA. This stay halts the District Court's orders to the extent they demand additional discovery and documentation from the Government until the Supreme Court decides on the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus or alternatively, a writ of certiorari.

Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, arguing against the grant of the stay. The dissent emphasizes that the Government failed to meet the high threshold required for extraordinary relief and that the lower courts' role in managing discovery and administrative records should be respected.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The majority opinion and the dissenting opinion reference several key precedents:

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706: Establishes the scope of judicial review of administrative actions.
• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971): Defines the "whole administrative record" necessary for judicial review.
• EX PARTE FAHEY, 332 U.S. 258 (1947): Discusses the limits of judicial intervention in administrative processes.
• Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004): Addresses the standards for granting extraordinary writs like mandamus.
• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 789 F.2d 26 (C.A.D.C.1986): Limits on disclosure of closed deliberations in multi-member agencies.
• Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985): Emphasizes reliance on the existing administrative record rather than creating a new one.

These precedents collectively underscore the importance of a complete administrative record in judicial reviews and limit the grounds on which courts can compel the government to expand such records.

Legal Reasoning

The dissent, authored by Justice Breyer, articulates that the Government's request for a writ of mandamus is unfounded because it fails to demonstrate that the lower court erred in its broad interpretation of the administrative record requirements. The APA mandates that courts review the "whole record," which includes all materials considered by the agency, not just those the agency chooses to submit. This ensures a thorough judicial review capable of assessing the legality and appropriateness of administrative decisions.

The Government's reliance on cases like Cheney and San Luis Obispo is critiqued as inapplicable to the present case, especially since DHS is not a multi-member agency under San Luis Obispo. Furthermore, the dissent argues that the Government did not present a compelling case for why the Supreme Court should intervene in what is typically a matter for lower courts.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative records are comprehensive and accessible for review. By granting the stay, the Court allows the Government time to seek appropriate relief without further burdening the litigants. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to the principles of transparency and thoroughness in administrative law, potentially impacting how future cases handle administrative record compilation and judicial reviews.

Additionally, the dissent's emphasis on the separation of duties between lower courts and the Supreme Court may influence future litigations, preserving the traditional boundaries of judicial intervention in administrative processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary court order directing a government official or entity to perform a duty they are legally obligated to complete. It is considered a drastic remedy, used only in exceptional cases where there is no other adequate legal remedy.

Administrative Record

The administrative record comprises all documents and evidence considered by an agency in making a decision. It includes both supportive and contrary materials, ensuring that judicial review can thoroughly assess the agency's decision-making process.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

DACA is a policy that allows individuals who were brought to the United States as children without legal authorization to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in In re UNITED STATES, et al. reinforces the necessity for complete administrative records in judicial reviews, ensuring that agency decisions are transparent and subject to comprehensive scrutiny. The dissenting opinion highlights the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between different levels of the judiciary and administrative processes. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving administrative law, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding the principles of thorough and fair administrative review.

Ultimately, this case underscores the balance courts must maintain between allowing administrative agencies sufficient autonomy and ensuring that their decisions are made based on a complete and transparent record, safeguarding the rights of individuals affected by such decisions.