Introduction

The case of In Re United States, et al. arose in the wake of the Trump administration's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA, established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012, provided temporary relief from deportation and work authorization to approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Following the announcement on September 5, 2017, of the program's termination effective March 5, 2018, numerous legal challenges ensued. Respondents filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging procedural and substantive flaws in the termination process under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Government sought a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Supreme Court to compel the District Court to stay certain orders requiring additional documentation to complete the administrative record. Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion opposing the Court's decision to grant a stay, arguing against the issuance of mandamus relief in this context.

Summary of the Judgment

In the majority decision, the Supreme Court granted the Government's application for a stay of the District Court's orders mandating the provision of additional documents to complete the administrative record concerning the termination of DACA. This stay was temporary, pending the outcome of the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented, contending that the Government had failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to warrant such a drastic remedy as mandamus.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Justice Breyer's dissent extensively references several key precedents:

• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971): Established that the "whole record" for judicial review under the APA includes the full administrative record before the agency at the time of decision-making.
• Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1983): Emphasized that the administrative record must contain all relevant materials, both supportive and contrary to the agency's decision.
• EX PARTE FAHEY (1947): Defined a writ of mandamus as a "drastic and extraordinary" remedy reserved for exceptional cases.
• San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC (1986): Addressed the scope of administrative records, particularly concerning closed deliberations within multi-member agencies.
• Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C. (2004): Discussed the limited applicability of mandamus when involving White House documents.
• Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (1985): Highlighted that judicial review should be based on the administrative record already in existence.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Breyer's dissent meticulously argues that the Government did not meet the stringent requirements for a writ of mandamus. He emphasizes that mandamus is appropriate only in "really extraordinary" circumstances, a threshold the Government failed to satisfy. Central to his argument is the interpretation of the APA's mandate that courts review the "whole record" when assessing agency actions. Breyer contends that this "whole record" cannot be limited solely to what the agency chooses to submit; rather, it encompasses all materials considered by the agency, ensuring a thorough and objective review process.

He further distinguishes the current case from precedents like San Luis Obispo and Cheney, noting that the DHS, which made decisions regarding DACA, is not a multi-member agency, and thus those specific rulings do not preclude the District Court from ordering additional documents. Moreover, Breyer addresses the Government's claims of privilege and procedural burdens, asserting that the District Court appropriately exercised its discretion in evaluating these matters.

Impact

Justice Breyer's dissent underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring comprehensive review of administrative actions. By advocating for the inclusion of all relevant documents in the administrative record, the dissent reinforces the principles of transparency and accountability in executive decisions. This perspective serves as a bulwark against potential executive overreach and ensures that affected parties can fully challenge administrative actions. Although dissenting opinions do not establish binding precedent, they influence future judicial reasoning and legislative considerations, potentially shaping the contours of administrative law and judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

Justice Breyer's dissent in In Re United States, et al. serves as a profound reminder of the judiciary's duty to uphold the integrity of administrative processes. By challenging the Government's attempt to limit the scope of the administrative record and opposing the extraordinary use of mandamus, the dissent champions the principles of thorough judicial review and balanced separation of powers. This perspective not only reinforces the necessity for comprehensive and transparent agency records but also ensures that executive actions remain subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny. As administrative complexities continue to evolve, such judicial opinions play a crucial role in shaping the landscape of administrative law and safeguarding the rights of individuals against potential executive overreach.