Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 
Opinion of the Court 

Duke  then  detailed  how  the  program  would  be  wound 
down:  No  new  applications  would  be  accepted,  but  DHS
would  entertain  applications  for  two-year  renewals  from 
DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within 
six months.  For all other DACA recipients, previously is-
sued  grants  of  deferred  action  and  work  authorization 
would not be revoked but would expire on their own terms, 
with no prospect for renewal.  Id., at 117a–118a. 

B 
Within  days  of  Acting  Secretary  Duke’s  rescission  an-
nouncement, multiple groups of plaintiffs ranging from in-
dividual DACA recipients and States to the Regents of the
University  of  California  and  the  National  Association  for 
the Advancement of Colored People challenged her decision 
in the U. S. District Courts for the Northern District of Cal-
ifornia (Regents, No. 18–587), the Eastern District of New 
York  (Batalla  Vidal,  No.  18–589),  and  the  District  of  Co-
lumbia (NAACP, No. 18–588).  The relevant claims are that 
the rescission was arbitrary and capricious in violation of
the APA and that it infringed the equal protection guaran-
tee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.1 

All three District Courts ruled for the plaintiffs, albeit at
different stages of the proceedings.2  In doing so, each court
rejected  the  Government’s  threshold  arguments  that  the 

—————— 

1 Plaintiffs  also  raised  notice  and  comment  claims,  which  uniformly
failed  below,  and  assorted  due  process  challenges,  some  of  which  sur-
vived motions to dismiss.  Those claims are not before us. 

2 In  a  related  challenge  not  at  issue  here,  the  District  Court  for  the 
District of Maryland granted partial summary judgment in favor of the 
Government.  Casa de Maryland v. United States Dept. of Homeland Se-
curity, 284 F. Supp. 3d 758 (2018).  After the Government filed petitions 
for certiorari in the instant cases, the Fourth Circuit reversed that deci-
sion and vacated Acting Secretary Duke’s rescission as arbitrary and ca-
pricious.  Casa de Maryland v. United States Dept. of Homeland Security, 
924 F. 3d 684 (2019), cert. pending, No. 18–1469.  The Fourth Circuit has 
since stayed its mandate.