Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 63

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

25 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Process, 89 Inter-
preter Releases 1557, App. 4, p. 2 (Aug. 20, 2012).  In fact, 
DHS  repeatedly  argued  in  court  that  the  2014  memoran-
dum was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion in part 
because deferred action created no rights on which recipi-
ents could rely.  Before the Fifth Circuit, DHS stated that 
“DHS  may  revoke  or  terminate  deferred  action  and  begin 
removal proceedings at any time at its discretion.”  Brief for 
Appellants  in  Texas  v.  United  States,  No.  15–40238,  p. 7; 
see also id., at 45–46.  And before this Court, in that same 
litigation,  DHS  reiterated  that  “DHS  has  absolute  discre-
tion  to  revoke  deferred  action  unilaterally,  without  notice
or  process.”  Brief  for  United  States  in  United  States  v. 
Texas, O. T. 2015, No. 15–674, p. 5; see also id., at 37.  If 
that  treatment  of  reliance  interests  was  incorrect,  it  pro-
vides yet one more example of a deficiency in DACA’s issu-
ance, not its rescission. 

* 

* 

* 
President  Trump’s  Acting  Secretary  of  Homeland  Secu-
rity inherited a program created by President Obama’s Sec-
retary  that  was  implemented  without  statutory  authority
and  without  following  the  APA’s  required  procedures. 
Then-Attorney  General  Sessions  correctly  concluded  that
this ultra vires program should be rescinded.  These cases 
could—and should—have ended with a determination that 
his legal conclusion was correct.

Instead, the majority today concludes that DHS was re-
quired  to  do  far  more.  Without  grounding  its  position  in 
either  the  APA  or  precedent,  the  majority  declares  that 
DHS  was  required  to  overlook  DACA’s  obvious  legal  defi-
ciencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifica-
tions before restoring the rule of law.  This holding is incor-
rect,  and  it  will  hamstring  all  future  agency  attempts  to 
undo  actions  that  exceed  statutory  authority.    I  would