Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 58

20 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

though no such detailed discussion accompanied DACA’s is-
suance.  And, the majority also requires DHS to discuss re-
liance interests at length, even though deferred action tra-
ditionally does not take reliance interests into account and 
DHS was not forced to explain its treatment of reliance in-
terests  in  the  first  instance  by  going  through  notice  and 
comment.  See infra, at 23–24.  The majority’s demand for
such an explanation here simply makes little sense.

At bottom, of course, none of this matters, because DHS 
did  provide  a  sufficient  explanation  for  its  action.    DHS’ 
statement that DACA was ultra vires was more than suffi-
cient to justify its rescission.12  By requiring more, the ma-
jority has distorted the APA review process beyond recogni-
tion,  further  burdening  all  future  attempts  to  rescind
unlawful programs.  Plaintiffs frequently bring successful
challenges to agency actions by arguing that the agency has
impermissibly dressed up a legislative rule as a policy state-
ment and must comply with the relevant procedures before
functionally binding regulated parties.  See, e.g., Mendoza 
v.  Perez,  754  F. 3d  1002  (CADC  2014);  Natural  Resources 
Defense  Council  v.  EPA,  643  F. 3d  311  (CADC  2011);  Na-
tional Family Planning & Reproductive Health Assn., Inc. 
v. Sullivan, 979 F. 2d 227 (CADC 1992).  But going forward,
when  a  rescinding  agency  inherits  an  invalid  legislative
rule that ignored virtually  every rulemaking requirement 
of the APA, it will be obliged to overlook that reality.  In-
stead of simply terminating the program because it did not
go  through  the  requisite  process,  the  agency  will  be  com-
pelled to treat an invalid legislative rule as though it were 
legitimate.13 

—————— 

12 I express no view on what other reasons would justify  an agency’s 
decision  to  rescind  a  procedurally  unlawful  action.    I  merely  point  out
that correctly concluding that the program was illegal is sufficient. 

13 In my view, even if DACA were permitted under the federal immi-
gration laws and had complied with the APA, it would still violate the
Constitution  as  an  impermissible  delegation  of  legislative  power.    See