Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 55

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

17 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

DACA.  But at the very least, this procedural defect com-
pounds  the  absurdity  of  the  majority’s  position  in  these 
cases. 

As described above, DACA fundamentally altered the im-
migration laws.  It created a new category of aliens who, as
a class, became exempt from statutory removal procedures, 
and it gave those aliens temporary lawful presence.  Both 
changes contravened statutory limits.  DACA is thus what 
is commonly called a substantive or legislative rule.8  As the 
name  implies,  our  precedents  state  that  legislative  rules 
are those that “have the force and effect of law.”  Chrysler 
Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 295 (1979) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).

Our  precedents  allow  the  vast  majority  of  legislative
rules  to  proceed  through  so-called  “informal”  notice  and
comment  rulemaking.  See  United  States  v.  Florida  East 
Coast R. Co., 410 U. S. 224, 237–238 (1973).9  But under our 
precedents,  an  agency  must  engage  in  certain  procedures 
mandated by the APA before its rule carries legal force.  Ki-
sor  v.  Wilkie,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (plurality  opinion)
(slip op., at 23) (“[A] legislative rule, . . . to be valid[,] must 
go through notice and comment”); id., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., 
concurring  in  judgment)  (slip  op.,  at  17)  (same);  Perez  v. 
Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 96 (2015); cf. Azar v. 
Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at
1) (same with respect to materially identical procedures un-
der the Medicare Act).  These procedures specify that the
agency “shall” publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in 
—————— 

8 The majority tacitly acknowledges as much, as it must.  See ante, at 
11–12.    Otherwise,  the  majority  would  have  to  accept  that  DACA  was 
nothing more than a policy of prosecutorial discretion, which would make 
its rescission unreviewable.  See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 831 
(1985). 

9 As I have previously pointed out, “the APA actually contemplated a 
much  more  formal  process  for  most  rulemaking.”  Perez  v.  Mortgage 
Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 128, n. 5 (2015) (opinion concurring in judg-
ment).