Introduction

The case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California, decided on June 18, 2020, marks a significant moment in administrative law and immigration policy in the United States. Central to this case is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012. DACA provides eligible undocumented immigrants who arrived as children with a temporary reprieve from deportation and eligibility for work authorization and other federal benefits. Following the change in presidential administration in 2017, the Trump administration sought to rescind both DACA and its expansion, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). This judicial review ultimately culminated in a Supreme Court decision that scrutinized the procedural and substantive aspects of the DHS's rescission efforts.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an evenly split decision, affirmed certain lower court rulings while vacating others and remanding the cases for further proceedings. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, concluding that the DHS's decision to rescind DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court held that DHS failed to adequately consider critical aspects of the policy, such as the separation of forbearance from benefits and the reliance interests of DACA recipients. Consequently, the judgments from various district courts were either affirmed, vacated, or partially reversed, with all cases remanded for further consideration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court's analysis heavily relied on established administrative law precedents, particularly focusing on the APA's requirements for agency action. Key cases cited include:

• HECKLER v. CHANEY: Established that certain agency decisions, such as the choice not to enforce a regulation, are unreviewable because they are committed to agency discretion by law.
• State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell: Reinforced the arbitrary and capricious standard, emphasizing that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for their actions.
• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe: Highlighted the importance of agencies not engaging in post hoc rationalizations and the necessity of contemporaneous reasoning.
• Ford Motor Co. v. State Farm: Further emphasized the need for agencies to consider all relevant factors and avoid ignoring significant aspects of the issue at hand.

Legal Reasoning

The Court examined whether the DHS's rescission of DACA met the APA's "arbitrary and capricious" standard. The majority found that DHS failed to:

• Provide a Reasoned Explanation: DHS did not adequately separate the forbearance (temporary reprieve from deportation) from the benefits (work authorization and federal benefits), treating them as a single entity without justifiable reasoning.
• Consider Policy Alternatives: The DHS neglected to explore alternative ways to rescind DACA, such as retaining forbearance while excluding certain benefits.
• Address Reliance Interests: There was insufficient consideration of how recipients had relied on DACA for education, employment, and personal stability.

The Court criticized the DHS for relying solely on the Attorney General's legal determination that DACA was unlawful, without delving into the practical implications of rescinding the program. This comprehensive failure to engage with the multifaceted aspects of the policy decision rendered the rescission arbitrary and capricious.

Impact

This judgment sets a crucial precedent for how agencies must approach the rescission of policies that confer significant benefits upon individuals or classes of individuals. Future agency actions seeking to rescind or modify existing programs will be scrutinized to ensure that:

• A clear and comprehensive rationale is provided, addressing all components of the policy.
• All relevant factors, including potential reliance interests and alternative approaches, are thoroughly considered.
• The separation of forbearance from benefits is maintained if they are to be treated differently.

Moreover, the decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that agencies do not wield their discretion in an unfettered or disconnected manner, thereby safeguarding administrative accountability and fairness.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

The APA is a foundational statute governing the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It ensures that agency actions are transparent, reasonable, and based on evidence. Under the APA, agency decisions must not be "arbitrary and capricious," meaning they should be logical, well-reasoned, and consider all relevant factors.

Arbitrary and Capricious Standard

This is the threshold test courts use to evaluate agency decisions under the APA. An action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency fails to provide a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. It ensures that agencies cannot act on whims or unsupported preferences.

Forbearance

In immigration policy, forbearance refers to the government's decision to delay or refrain from executing deportation orders against certain individuals. It's a discretionary tool that does not confer lawful status but provides temporary relief from removal.

Deferred Action

Deferred action is an administrative decision to defer consideration of an individual's removal from the United States. Unlike forbearance, it can be granted on a case-by-case basis and may be renewable, providing recipients with eligibility for work authorization and access to certain benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California reinforces the necessity for federal agencies to adhere strictly to procedural and substantive requirements when altering or rescinding administrative policies. By deeming the DHS's rescission of DACA arbitrary and capricious, the Court emphasized the importance of comprehensive agency reasoning and the consideration of all relevant factors, including the separation of different policy components and the reliance interests of affected individuals. This ruling not only affects the standing DACA program but also establishes a broader precedent that will influence future administrative actions, ensuring greater accountability and thoroughness in agency decision-making processes.