Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

its  expertise,  and  does  so  in  a  manner  akin  to  a  criminal 
prosecutor.  Building on that premise, the Government ar-
gues  that  the  rescission  of  a  non-enforcement  policy  is no 
different—for purposes of reviewability—from the adoption 
of that policy.  While the rescission may lead to increased 
enforcement,  it  does  not,  by  itself,  constitute  a  particular 
enforcement  action.  Applying  this  logic  to  the  facts  here,
the Government submits that DACA is a non-enforcement 
policy and that its rescission is therefore unreviewable. 

But  we  need  not  test  this  chain  of  reasoning  because
DACA is not simply a non-enforcement policy.  For starters, 
the DACA Memorandum did not merely “refus[e] to insti-
tute proceedings” against a particular entity or even a par-
ticular class.  Ibid.  Instead, it directed USCIS to “establish 
a clear and efficient process” for identifying individuals who 
met the enumerated criteria.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 100a. 
Based on this directive, USCIS solicited applications from 
eligible  aliens,  instituted  a  standardized  review  process,
and sent formal notices indicating whether the alien would 
receive the two-year forbearance.  These proceedings are ef-
fectively “adjudicat[ions].”  Id., at 117a.  And the result of 
these adjudications—DHS’s decision to “grant deferred ac-
tion,” Brief for Petitioners 45—is an “affirmative act of ap-
proval,” the very opposite of a “refus[al] to act,” Chaney, 470 
U. S., at 831–832.  In short, the DACA Memorandum does 
not announce a passive non-enforcement policy; it created
a  program  for  conferring  affirmative  immigration  relief.
The creation of that program—and its rescission—is an “ac-
tion [that] provides a focus for judicial review.”  Id., at 832. 
The  benefits  attendant  to  deferred  action  provide
further  confirmation  that  DACA  is  more  than  simply  a 
non-enforcement  policy.  As  described  above,  by  virtue  of
receiving deferred action, the 700,000 DACA recipients may 
request work authorization and are eligible for Social Secu-
rity and Medicare.  See supra, at 3.  Unlike an agency’s re-
fusal to take requested enforcement action, access to these