Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

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

the litigation then continued in the District Court.  

In  June  2017,  following  a  change  in  Presidential  administrations, 
DHS rescinded the DAPA Memorandum, citing, among other reasons,
the ongoing suit by Texas and new policy priorities.  That September, 
the Attorney General advised Acting Secretary of Homeland Security 
Elaine C. Duke that DACA shared DAPA’s legal flaws and should also
be rescinded.  The next day, Duke acted on that advice.  Taking into
consideration the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings and the At-
torney General’s letter, Duke decided to terminate the program.  She 
explained that DHS would no longer accept new applications, but that 
existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six
months could apply for a two-year renewal.  For all other DACA recip-
ients,  previously  issued  grants  of  relief  would  expire  on  their  own 
terms, with no prospect for renewal.  

Several  groups  of  plaintiffs  challenged  Duke’s  decision  to  rescind 
DACA, claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the
Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA)  and  infringed  the  equal  protec-
tion guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  District 
Courts in California (Regents, No. 18–587), New York (Batalla Vidal, 
No.  18–589),  and  the  District  of  Columbia  (NAACP,  No.  18–588)  all 
ruled  for  the plaintiffs.    Each  court  rejected  the  Government’s  argu-
ments that the claims were unreviewable under the APA and that the 
INA deprived the courts of jurisdiction.  In Regents and Batalla Vidal, 
the District Courts further held that the equal protection claims were
adequately alleged, and they entered coextensive nationwide prelimi-
nary injunctions based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely 
to succeed on their APA claims.   The District Court in NAACP took a 
different  approach.    It  deferred  ruling  on  the  equal  protection  chal-
lenge but granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their
APA  claim,  finding  that  the  rescission  was  inadequately  explained. 
The court then stayed its order for 90 days to permit DHS to reissue a 
memorandum rescinding DACA, this time with a fuller explanation of
the  conclusion  that  DACA  was  unlawful.  Two  months  later,  Duke’s 
successor, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, responded to the court’s or-
der.  She declined to disturb or replace Duke’s rescission decision and 
instead  explained  why  she  thought  her  predecessor’s  decision  was 
sound.  In addition to reiterating the illegality conclusion, she offered 
several new justifications for the rescission.  The Government moved 
for the District Court to reconsider in light of this additional explana-
tion, but the court concluded that the new reasoning failed to elaborate
meaningfully on the illegality rationale. 

The  Government  appealed  the  various  District  Court  decisions  to 
the Second, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, respectively.  While those ap-
peals were pending, the Government filed three petitions for certiorari