Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 69

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

3 

Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

the  Executive  Branch  possesses  the  legal  authority  to  re-
scind DACA  and  to resume pre-DACA  enforcement  of  the 
immigration laws enacted by Congress.  Having previously 
adopted a policy of prosecutorial discretion and nonenforce-
ment with respect to a particular class of offenses or indi-
viduals, the Executive Branch has the legal authority to re-
scind such a policy and resume enforcing the law enacted 
by  Congress.    The  Executive  Branch’s  exercise  of  that  re-
scission  authority  is  subject  to  constitutional  constraints 
and may also be subject to statutory constraints.  The nar-
row  legal  dispute  here  concerns  a  statutory  constraint—
namely, whether the Executive Branch’s action to rescind 
DACA satisfied the general arbitrary-and-capricious stand-
ard of the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. 
  The  APA’s  arbitrary-and-capricious  standard  requires 
that agency action be reasonable and reasonably explained.  
As  the  Court  has  long  stated,  judicial  review  under  that 
standard is deferential to the agency.  The Court may not 
substitute its policy judgment for that of the agency.  The 
Court  simply  ensures  that  the  agency  has  acted  within  a 
broad zone of reasonableness and, in particular, has reason-
ably  considered  the  relevant  issues  and  reasonably  ex-
plained the decision.  See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 
Inc.,  556  U. S.  502  (2009);  Motor  Vehicle  Mfrs.  Assn.  of 
United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 
463 U. S. 29 (1983). 
  The  Executive  Branch  explained  its  decision  to  rescind 
DACA in two sequential memorandums by successive Sec-
retaries  of  Homeland  Security:  the  2017  Duke  Memoran-
dum and the 2018 Nielsen Memorandum.  The Duke Mem-
orandum  focused  on  DACA’s  perceived  legal  flaws.    The 
Court today finds the Duke Memorandum insufficient un-
der the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard. 
  But regardless of whether the Court is correct about the 
Duke Memorandum, the Nielsen Memorandum more fully 
explained  the  Department’s  legal  reasons  for  rescinding