Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

5 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

§1324a(h)(3)(B);  8  CFR  §274a.12(c)(14).    Despite  these
changes, the memorandum contradictorily claimed that it 
“confer[red] no substantive right [or] immigration status,” 
because “[o]nly the Congress, acting through its legislative 
authority, can confer these rights.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. in
No. 18–587, at 101a. 

In 2014, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh John-
son broadened the deferred-action program in yet another
brief  memorandum.  This  2014  memorandum  expanded
DACA eligibility by extending the deferred-action period to 
three  years  and  by  relaxing  other  criteria.  It  also  imple-
mented  a  related  program,  known  as  Deferred  Action  for
Parents  of  Americans  and  Lawful  Permanent  Residents 
(DAPA).  DAPA allowed unlawfully present parents to ob-
tain deferred action derivatively through their children who 
were  either  citizens  or  lawful  permanent  residents.    Ap-
proximately 4.3 million aliens qualified for DAPA and, as
with DACA, these individuals would have become eligible 
for certain federal and state benefits upon the approval of 
their DAPA applications.  See Texas v. United States, 809 
F. 3d 134, 181 (CA5 2015).  Nevertheless, the 2014 memo-
randum repeated the incongruous assertion that these pro-
grams “d[id] not confer any form of legal status in this coun-
try” and added that deferred action “may be terminated at 
any time at the agency’s discretion.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 
in No. 18–587, at 104a. 

B 

Twenty-six States filed suit to enjoin the implementation 
of  these  new  programs,  DAPA  and  “expanded  DACA,” 
maintaining  that  they  violated  the  Constitution,  the  Ad-
ministrative  Procedure  Act  (APA),  and  the  Immigration 
and Naturalization Act (INA).  The States contended that, 
because  the  2014  memorandum  allowed  aliens  to  receive 
deferred action and other benefits, it amounted to a legisla-
tive  rule  that  had  to  comply  with  the  APA’s  notice  and