Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 
Opinion of the Court 

General concluded, the DACA policy was contrary to law.” 
Id., at 122a.  Second, she added that, regardless, the agency
had “serious doubts about [DACA’s] legality”  and, for law 
enforcement  reasons,  wanted  to  avoid  “legally  questiona-
ble”  policies.  Id.,  at  123a.  Third,  she  identified  multiple
policy reasons for rescinding DACA, including (1) the belief 
that any class-based immigration relief should come from 
Congress,  not  through  executive  non-enforcement;  (2)
DHS’s preference for exercising prosecutorial discretion on 
“a truly individualized, case-by-case basis”; and (3) the im-
portance of “project[ing] a message” that immigration laws
would be enforced against all classes and categories of al-
iens.  Id., at 123a–124a.  In her final paragraph, Secretary 
Nielsen  acknowledged  the  “asserted  reliance  interests”  in 
DACA’s continuation but concluded that they did not “out-
weigh the questionable legality of the DACA policy and the
other reasons” for the rescission discussed in her memoran-
dum.  Id., at 125a. 

The Government asked the D. C. District Court to revise 
its prior order in light of the reasons provided by Secretary 
Nielsen, but the court declined.  In the court’s view, the new 
memorandum,  which  “fail[ed]  to  elaborate  meaningfully” 
on the agency’s illegality rationale, still did not provide an 
adequate  explanation  for  the  September  2017  rescission. 
315 F. Supp. 3d 457, 460, 473–474 (2018). 

The Government appealed the various District Court de-
cisions  to  the  Second,  Ninth,  and  D. C.  Circuits,  respec-
tively.  In November 2018, while those appeals were pend-
ing,  the  Government  simultaneously  filed  three  petitions
for certiorari before judgment.  After the Ninth Circuit af-
firmed the nationwide injunction in Regents, see 908 F. 3d 
476 (2018), but before rulings from the other two Circuits,
we granted the petitions and consolidated the cases for ar-
gument.  588 U. S. ___ (2019).  The issues raised here are 
(1) whether  the  APA  claims  are  reviewable,  (2)  if  so,