Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

27 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

IV 
Lastly,  we  turn  to  respondents’  claim  that  the  rescis-
sion  violates  the  equal  protection  guarantee  of  the  Fifth
Amendment. 

The parties dispute the proper framing of this claim.  The 
Government  contends  that  the  allegation  that  the  Execu-
tive, motivated by animus, ended a program that dispropor-
tionately  benefits  certain  ethnic  groups  is  a  selective  en-
forcement  claim.  Such  a  claim,  the  Government  asserts, 
is  barred  by  our  decision  in  Reno  v.  American-Arab  Anti-
Discrimination Committee.  See 525 U. S., at 488 (holding
that  “an  alien  unlawfully  in  this  country  has  no  constitu-
tional  right  to  assert  selective  enforcement  as  a  defense
against his deportation”).  Respondents counter that their 
claim falls outside the scope of that precedent because they 
are  not  challenging  individual  enforcement  proceedings.
We need not resolve this debate because, even if the claim 
is cognizable, the allegations here are insufficient. 

To plead animus, a plaintiff must raise a plausible infer-
ence that an “invidious discriminatory purpose was a moti-
vating factor” in the relevant decision.  Arlington Heights v. 
Metropolitan  Housing  Development  Corp.,  429  U. S.  252, 
266 (1977).  Possible evidence includes disparate impact on
a  particular  group,  “[d]epartures  from  the  normal  proce-
dural  sequence,”  and  “contemporary  statements  by  mem-
bers of the decisionmaking body.”  Id., at 266–268.  Track-
ing  these  factors,  respondents  allege  that  animus  is
evidenced by (1) the disparate impact of the rescission on
Latinos  from  Mexico,  who  represent  78%  of  DACA  recipi-
ents;  (2)  the  unusual  history  behind  the  rescission;  and 
(3) pre- and post-election statements by President Trump.
Brief for New York 54–55. 

None  of  these  points,  either  singly  or  in  concert,  estab-
lishes  a  plausible  equal  protection  claim.    First,  because 
Latinos  make  up  a  large  share  of  the  unauthorized  alien
population, one would expect them to make up an outsized