Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

19 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

brought to this country differently from other classes of al-
iens  who  have  lived  in  the  country  without  incident  for 
many  years.  And,  it  did  not  invoke  any  law  authorizing 
DHS to create such a program beyond its inexplicable as-
sertion that DACA  was consistent with existing law.  Be-
cause  DHS  failed  to  engage  in  the  statutorily  mandated
process, DACA never gained status as a legally binding reg-
ulation that could impose duties or obligations on third par-
ties.  See id., at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 23); id., 
at ___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 17).

Given this state of affairs, it is unclear to me why DHS
needed to provide any explanation whatsoever when it de-
cided to rescind DACA.  Nothing in the APA suggests that 
DHS was required to spill any ink justifying the rescission
of an invalid legislative rule, let alone that it was required 
to provide policy justifications beyond acknowledging that 
the program was simply unlawful from the beginning.  And, 
it is well established that we do not remand for an agency 
to correct its reasoning when it was required by law to take 
or  abstain  from  an  action.  See  Morgan  Stanley  Capital 
Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 
U. S. 527, 544–545 (2008).  Here, remand would be futile, 
because no amount of policy explanation could cure the fact 
that DHS lacked statutory authority to enact DACA in the 
first place.

Instead of recognizing this, the majority now requires the 
rescinding Department to treat the invalid rule as though
it were legitimate.  As just explained, such a requirement 
is  not  supported  by  the  APA.11    It  is  also  absurd,  as  evi-
denced by its application to DACA in these cases.  The ma-
jority insists that DHS was obligated to discuss its choices 
regarding  benefits  and  forbearance  in  great  detail,  even 

—————— 

11 Thus, it is not that the APA “should not” be construed to support the 
majority’s result, ante, at 26 (emphasis added), it is that the APA does 
not and cannot support that result.