Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 29

24 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 
Opinion of the Court 

(slip op., at 9) (quoting Fox Television, 556 U. S., at 515).  “It 
would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters.” 
Id., at 515.  Yet that is what the Duke Memorandum did. 

For its part, the Government does not contend that Duke
considered potential reliance interests; it counters that she
did not need to.  In the Government’s view, shared by the 
lead dissent, DACA recipients have no “legally cognizable 
reliance interests” because the DACA Memorandum stated 
that the program “conferred no substantive rights” and pro-
vided benefits only in two-year increments.  Reply Brief 16–
17; App. to Pet. for Cert. 125a. See also post, at 23–24 (opin-
ion of THOMAS, J).  But neither the Government nor the lead 
dissent cites any legal authority establishing that such fea-
tures automatically preclude reliance interests, and we are
not aware of any.  These disclaimers are surely pertinent in 
considering the strength of any reliance interests, but that
consideration must be undertaken by the agency in the first 
instance, subject to normal APA review.  There was no such 
consideration in the Duke Memorandum. 

Respondents and their amici assert that there was much 
for DHS to consider.  They stress that, since 2012, DACA
recipients have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on 
careers,  started  businesses,  purchased  homes,  and  even 
married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA pro-
gram.  Brief for Respondent Regents of Univ. of California 
et al. in No. 18–587, p. 41 (Brief for Regents).  The conse-
quences  of  the  rescission,  respondents  emphasize,  would 
“radiate  outward”  to  DACA  recipients’  families,  including 
their  200,000  U. S.-citizen  children,  to  the  schools  where 
DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who
have invested time and money in training them.  See id., at 
41–42; Brief for Respondent State of New York et al. in No.
18–589, p. 42 (Brief for New York).  See also Brief for 143 
Businesses as Amici Curiae 17 (estimating that hiring and
training  replacements  would  cost  employers  $6.3  billion).