Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 72

6 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 
Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

may in some circumstances decline to examine an after-the-
fact agency explanation.  See Camp v. Pitts, 411 U. S. 138, 
142–143  (1973)  (per  curiam);  Citizens  to  Preserve  Overton 
Park,  Inc.  v.  Volpe,  401  U. S.  402,  419–421  (1971).    But 
agency  adjudications  are  “concerned  with  the  determina-
tion  of  past  and  present  rights  and  liabilities,”  Attorney 
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 14 
(1947), and implicate the due process interests of the indi-
vidual parties to the adjudication.  Judicial review of an ad-
judication  therefore  ordinarily  focuses  on  what  happened 
during the agency’s adjudication process of deciding that in-
dividual case. 
  Even if certain agency adjudications have a slightly more 
stringent  restriction  on  post hoc  explanations,  the  APA  is 
“based upon a dichotomy between rule making and adjudi-
cation,” ibid., and this case involves an ongoing agency rule 
that has future effect—the rescission of DACA.  The Nielsen 
Memorandum  implements  and  explains  the  rescission  of 
DACA.    I  am  aware  of  no  case  from  this  Court,  and  the 
Court today cites none, that has employed the post hoc jus-
tification  doctrine  to  exclude  an  agency’s  official  explana-
tion of an agency rule.  For purposes of arbitrary-and-capri-
cious review, it does not matter whether the latest official 
explanation  was  two  years  ago  or  three  years  ago.    What 
matters is whether the explanation was reasonable and fol-
lowed  the  requisite  procedures.    In  my  view,  the  Court 
should  consider  the  Nielsen  Memorandum  in  deciding 
whether the Department’s rescission of DACA satisfies the 
APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard. 
  Because  the  Court  excludes  the  Nielsen  Memorandum, 
the Court sends the case back to the Department of Home-
land Security for further explanation.  Although I disagree 
with the Court’s decision to remand, the only practical con-
sequence  of  the  Court’s  decision  to  remand  appears  to  be 
some  delay.    The  Court’s  decision  seems  to  allow  the  De-
partment on remand to relabel and reiterate the substance