Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 30

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

In addition, excluding DACA recipients from the lawful la-
bor force may, they tell us, result in the loss of $215 billion 
in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal
tax revenue over the next ten years.  Brief for Regents 6.
Meanwhile, States and local governments could lose $1.25
billion in tax revenue each year.  Ibid. 

These are certainly noteworthy concerns, but they are not 
necessarily  dispositive.  To  the  Government  and  lead  dis-
sent’s  point,  DHS  could  respond  that  reliance  on  forbear-
ance and benefits was unjustified in light of the express lim-
itations in the DACA Memorandum.  Or it might conclude 
that reliance interests in benefits that it views as unlawful 
are entitled to no or diminished weight.  And, even if DHS 
ultimately concludes that the reliance interests rank as se-
rious, they are but one factor to consider.  DHS may deter-
mine, in the particular context before it, that other interests
and policy concerns outweigh any reliance interests.  Mak-
ing  that  difficult  decision  was  the  agency’s  job,  but  the 
agency failed to do it.

DHS  has  considerable  flexibility  in  carrying  out  its  re-
sponsibility.  The wind-down here is a good example of the
kind  of  options  available.  Acting  Secretary  Duke  author-
ized DHS to process two-year renewals for those DACA re-
cipients  whose  benefits  were  set  to  expire  within  six
months.  But Duke’s consideration was solely for the pur-
pose of assisting the agency in dealing with “administrative
complexities.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 116a–118a.  She should 
have considered whether she had similar flexibility in ad-
dressing  any  reliance  interests  of  DACA  recipients.    The 
lead  dissent  contends  that  accommodating  such  interests
would be “another exercise of unlawful power,” post, at 23 
(opinion of THOMAS, J.), but the Government does not make
that argument and DHS has already extended benefits for 
purposes  other  than  reliance,  following  consultation  with 
the Office of the Attorney General.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 
116a.