Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

safety.  Id.,  at  98a.  DHS  concluded  that  individuals  who 
meet these criteria warrant favorable treatment under the 
immigration laws because they “lacked the intent to violate
the law,” are “productive” contributors to our society, and
“know only this country as home.”  Id., at 98a–99a. 

“[T]o prevent [these] low priority individuals from being
removed from the United States,” the DACA Memorandum 
instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “exer-
cise prosecutorial discretion[ ] on an individual basis . . . by
deferring  action  for  a  period  of  two  years,  subject  to  re-
newal.”  Id., at 100a.  In addition, it directs U. S. Citizen-
ship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to “accept applica-
tions  to  determine  whether  these  individuals  qualify  for
work  authorization  during  this  period  of  deferred  action,” 
id., at 101a, as permitted under regulations long predating 
DACA’s creation, see 8 CFR §274a.12(c)(14) (2012) (permit-
ting work authorization for deferred action recipients who 
establish “economic necessity”); 46 Fed. Reg. 25080–25081
(1981) (similar).  Pursuant to other regulations, deferred ac-
tion  recipients  are  considered  “lawfully  present”  for  pur-
poses  of,  and  therefore  eligible  to  receive,  Social  Security 
and  Medicare  benefits.  See  8  CFR  §1.3(a)(4)(vi);  42  CFR
§417.422(h) (2012). 

In  November  2014,  two  years  after  DACA  was  promul-
gated,  DHS  issued  a  memorandum  announcing  that  it 
would  expand  DACA  eligibility  by  removing  the  age  cap,
shifting the date-of-entry requirement from 2007 to 2010, 
and extending the deferred action and work authorization
period to three years.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 106a–107a.  In 
the  same  memorandum,  DHS  created  a  new,  related  pro-
gram known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans 
and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.  That program
would have authorized deferred action for up to 4.3 million 
parents whose children were U. S. citizens or lawful perma-
nent residents.  These parents were to enjoy the same for-
bearance,  work  eligibility,  and  other  benefits  as  DACA