Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

Whether DACA is illegal is, of course, a legal determina-
tion, and therefore a question for the Attorney General.  But 
deciding how best to address a finding of illegality moving 
forward  can  involve  important  policy  choices,  especially
when the finding concerns a program with the breadth of
DACA.  Those policy choices are for DHS. 

Acting Secretary Duke plainly exercised such discretion-
ary  authority  in  winding  down  the  program.  See  App.  to
Pet. for Cert. 117a–118a (listing the Acting Secretary’s de-
cisions on eight transition issues).  Among other things, she
specified that those DACA recipients whose benefits were 
set  to  expire  within  six  months  were  eligible for  two-year
renewals.  Ibid. 

But Duke did not appear to appreciate the full scope of 
her  discretion,  which  picked  up  where  the  Attorney  Gen-
eral’s  legal  reasoning  left  off.  The  Attorney  General  con-
cluded that “the DACA policy has the same legal . . . defects 
that the courts recognized as to DAPA.”  App. 878.  So, to 
understand those defects, we look to the Fifth Circuit, the 
highest  court  to  offer  a  reasoned  opinion  on  the  legality
of DAPA.  That court described the “core” issue before it as 
the “Secretary’s decision” to grant “eligibility for benefits”—
including  work  authorization,  Social  Security,  and 
Medicare—to  unauthorized  aliens  on  “a  class-wide  basis.” 
Texas, 809 F. 3d, at 170; see id., at 148, 184.  The Fifth Cir-
cuit’s focus on these benefits was central to every stage of 
its analysis.  See id., at 155 (standing); id., at 163 (zone of
interest); id., at 164 (applicability of §1252(g)); id., at 166 
(reviewability); id., at 176–177 (notice and comment); id., at 
184 (substantive APA).  And the Court ultimately held that
DAPA  was  “manifestly  contrary  to  the  INA”  precisely  be-
cause  it  “would  make  4.3  million  otherwise  removable  al-
iens”  eligible  for  work  authorization  and  public  benefits. 
Id., at 181–182 (internal quotation marks omitted).5 

—————— 

5 As the Fifth Circuit noted, DAPA recipients were eligible for Social