DACA rescission failed basic administrative-law review

2020-06-18

ruled unlawful
The Supreme Court held the 2017 DACA rescission reviewable and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because DHS failed to consider retaining forbearance and failed to address reliance interests; the Court rejected the equal-protection claim.
- Supreme Court of the United States: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020)Syllabus at 1-8; opinion at 9-29

Summary and current status

The Supreme Court held the administration's rescission arbitrary and capricious because DHS ignored important policy choices and reliance interests.

Final ruling on the 2017 rescission; later DACA litigation is separate.

People and organizations

Donald J. Trumpdirected administration that rescinded DACA2017 DACA rescission
ruled unlawful1 sourceCited claim 1

2017 DACA rescission1 action
Calculation details
Basis
Observed
Population
DHS's September 2017 decision to rescind DACA
Period
2020-06-18 to 2020-06-18
As of
2020-06-18
Method
Count the rescission once after the Supreme Court held it arbitrary and capricious. The three consolidated proceedings and later DACA-policy litigation are not additional rescissions.
Uncertainty
An indexed action, not a comprehensive total. The holding concerns the 2017 rescission's administrative-law defects, not the legality of all later DACA rules.