Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

2 

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

  For the last 20 years, the country has engaged in conse-
quential policy, religious, and moral debates about the legal 
status  of  millions  of  young  immigrants  who,  as  children, 
were brought to the United States and have lived here ever 
since.  Those young immigrants do not have legal status in 
the United States under current statutory law.  They live, 
go  to  school,  and  work  here  with  uncertainty  about  their 
futures.  Despite many attempts over the last two decades, 
Congress has not yet enacted legislation to afford legal sta-
tus to those immigrants. 
  In 2012, exercising its view of the Executive’s prosecuto-
rial  discretion  under  Article  II  and  the  immigration  laws, 
President Obama’s administration unilaterally instituted a 
program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 
or  DACA.    Under  DACA,  eligible  young  immigrants  may 
apply  for  and  receive  deferred  action.    They  must  renew 
their  DACA  status  every  two  years.    Under  the  program, 
the Executive Branch broadly forbears from enforcing cer-
tain  immigration  removal  laws  against  DACA  recipients.  
And by virtue of the forbearance, DACA recipients also be-
come eligible for work authorization and other benefits. 
  Since  2017,  President  Trump’s  administration  has 
sought to rescind DACA based on its different and narrower 
understanding  of  the  Executive’s  prosecutorial  discretion 
under Article II and the immigration laws.  In its view, the 
Executive Branch legally may not, and as a policy matter 
should  not,  unilaterally  forbear  from  enforcing  the  immi-
gration laws against such a large class of individuals.  The 
current administration has stated that it instead wants to 
work with Congress to enact comprehensive legislation that 
would address the legal status of those immigrants together 
with other significant immigration issues. 
  The question before the Court is whether the Executive 
Branch acted lawfully in ordering rescission of the ongoing 
DACA  program.    To  begin  with,  all  nine  Members  of  the 
Court  accept,  as  do  the  DACA  plaintiffs  themselves,  that