Department Of Homeland Security. v. Regents Of The University Of California

140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2012, DHS issued a memorandum announcing an immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Aliens who arrived in the United States as children could apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. DHS expanded DACA eligibility and created a related program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). That program would have made 4.3 million parents of U. S. citizens or lawful permanent residents eligible for the same forbearance from removal, work eligibility, and other benefits as DACA recipients. Texas and 25 other States, secured a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of both the DACA expansion and DAPA. The Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction, concluding that the program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which carefully defines eligibility for benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed. In June 2017, DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum. Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine C. Duke decided to terminate DACA as it too was illegally created. She explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recipients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal. Ps claimed the decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and infringed the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Government appealed the various District Court decisions. While those appeals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari before judgment. This Supreme Court granted certiorari.