Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

before judgment.  Following the Ninth Circuit affirmance in Regents, 
this Court granted certiorari.  

Held: The  judgment  in  No.  18–587  is  vacated  in  part  and  reversed  in
part; the judgment in No. 18–588 is affirmed; the February 13, 2018 
order in No. 18–589 is vacated, the November 9, 2017 order is affirmed 
in part, and the March 29, 2018 order is reversed in part; and all of the 
cases are remanded. 

No. 18–587, 908 F. 3d 476, vacated in part and reversed in part; No. 18–
588, affirmed; and No. 18–589, February 13, 2018 order vacated, No-
vember 9, 2017 order affirmed in part, and March 29, 2018 order re-
versed in part; all cases remanded. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to 

Part IV, concluding:

1. DHS’s  rescission  decision  is  reviewable  under  the  APA  and  is 

within this Court’s jurisdiction.  Pp. 9–13.

(a) The APA’s “basic presumption of judicial review” of agency ac-
tion, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, can be rebut-
ted by showing that the “agency action is committed to agency discre-
tion by law,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2).  In Heckler v. Chaney, the Court held 
that this narrow exception includes an agency’s decision not to insti-
tute an enforcement action.  470 U. S. 821, 831–832.  The Government 
contends that DACA is a general non-enforcement policy equivalent to
the  individual  non-enforcement  decision  in  Chaney.  But  the  DACA 
Memorandum did not merely decline to institute enforcement proceed-
ings; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration re-
lief.  Therefore,  unlike  the  non-enforcement  decision  in  Chaney, 
DACA’s  creation—and  its  rescission—is  an  “action  [that]  provides  a 
focus for judicial review.”  Id., at 832.  In addition, by virtue of receiving 
deferred action, 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authori-
zation and are eligible for Social Security and Medicare.  Access to such 
benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.”  Ibid. 
DACA’s rescission is thus subject to review under the APA.  Pp. 9–12.
(b) The  two  jurisdictional  provisions  of  the  INA  invoked  by  the 
Government do not apply.  Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(9), which bars re-
view of claims arising from “action[s]” or “proceeding[s] brought to re-
move an alien,” is inapplicable where, as here, the parties do not chal-
lenge any removal proceedings.  And the rescission is not a decision “to 
commence  proceedings,  adjudicate  cases,  or  execute  removal  orders” 
within the meaning of §1252(g).  Pp. 12–13. 

2. DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious un-

der the APA.  Pp. 13–26. 

(a) In assessing the rescission, the Government urges the Court to 
consider not just the contemporaneous explanation offered by Acting 
Secretary Duke but also the additional reasons supplied by Secretary