Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Syllabus 

was  not  required  to  “consider  all  policy  alternatives,”  ibid.,  deferred 
action  was  “within  the  ambit  of  the  existing”  policy,  ibid.;  indeed,  it 
was the centerpiece of the policy.  In failing to consider the option to 
retain deferred action, Duke “failed to supply the requisite ‘reasoned
analysis.’ ”  Id., at 57. 

That  omission  alone  renders  Duke’s  decision  arbitrary  and  capri-
cious,  but  it  was  not  the  only  defect.  Duke  also  failed  to  address 
whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. 
Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 742.  Certain 
features  of  the  DACA  policy  may  affect  the  strength  of  any  reliance 
interests, but those features are for the agency to consider in the first 
instance.  DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and
could have considered various accommodations.  While the agency was 
not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess
the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them
against competing policy concerns.  Its failure to do so was arbitrary 
and capricious.  Pp. 17–26.

THE  CHIEF JUSTICE,  joined  by  JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, 
and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that respondents’ claims fail 
to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by
animus  in  violation  of  the  equal  protection  guarantee  of  the  Fifth 
Amendment.  Pp. 27–29. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. 
GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SO-
TOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion
concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in 
part.  THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and
dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.  ALITO, J., 
and  KAVANAUGH, J.,  filed  opinions  concurring  in  the  judgment  in  part
and dissenting in part.