Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the INA 
deprived  the  court  of  jurisdiction.    298  F. Supp.  3d  209, 
223–224, 234–235 (DC 2018); 279 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1029–
1033  (ND  Cal.  2018);  295  F. Supp.  3d  127,  150,  153–154 
(EDNY 2017).

In  Regents  and  Batalla  Vidal,  the  District  Courts  held 
that  the  equal  protection  claims  were  adequately  alleged.
298 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1315 (ND Cal. 2018); 291 F. Supp. 3d 
260, 279 (EDNY 2018).  Those courts also entered coexten-
sive nationwide preliminary injunctions, based on the con-
clusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the mer-
its  of  their  claims  that  the  rescission  was  arbitrary  and 
capricious.  These injunctions did not require DHS to accept
new applications, but did order the agency to allow DACA
recipients to “renew their enrollments.”  279 F. Supp. 3d, at 
1048; see 279 F. Supp. 3d 401, 437 (EDNY 2018). 

In  NAACP,  the  D. C.  District  Court  took  a  different 
course.  In April 2018, it deferred ruling on the equal pro-
tection challenge but granted partial summary judgment to 
the plaintiffs on their APA claim, holding that Acting Sec-
retary  Duke’s  “conclusory  statements  were  insufficient  to
explain the change in [the agency’s] view of DACA’s lawful-
ness.”  298 F. Supp. 3d, at 243.  The District Court stayed
its order for 90 days to permit DHS to “reissue a memoran-
dum rescinding DACA, this time providing a fuller expla-
nation for the determination that the program lacks statu-
tory and constitutional authority.”  Id., at 245. 

Two  months  later,  Duke’s  successor,  Secretary  Kirstjen
M. Nielsen, responded via memorandum.  App. to Pet. for
Cert. 120a–126a.  She explained that, “[h]aving considered 
the Duke memorandum,” she “decline[d] to disturb” the re-
scission.  Id., at 121a.  Secretary Nielsen went on to articu-
late her “understanding” of Duke’s memorandum, identify-
ing  three  reasons  why,  in  Nielsen’s  estimation,  “the
decision  to  rescind  the  DACA  policy  was,  and  remains, 
sound.”  Ibid.  First, she reiterated that, “as the Attorney