Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 49

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

11 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

carefully provid[e] legal designations allowing defined clas-
ses  of  aliens  to  be  lawfully  present.”    Texas,  809  F. 3d,  at 
179.  In light of this elaborate statutory scheme, the lack of 
any similar provision for DACA recipients convincingly es-
tablishes that Congress left DHS with no discretion to cre-
ate an additional class of aliens eligible for lawful presence.
Congress knows well how to provide broad discretion, and
it has provided open-ended delegations of authority in stat-
utes too numerous to name.  But when it comes to lawful 
presence, Congress did something strikingly different.  In-
stead of enacting  a statute with “broad general directives”
and leaving it to the agency to fill in the lion’s share of the 
details,  Mistretta  v.  United  States,  488  U. S.  361,  372 
(1989),  Congress  put  in  place  intricate  specifications  gov-
erning eligibility for lawful presence.  This comprehensive
scheme indicates that DHS has no discretion to supplement
or amend the statutory provisions in any manner, least of 
all by memorandum.  See FDA v. Brown & Williamson To-
bacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 125 (2000) (An agency “may not 
exercise its authority in a manner that is inconsistent with
the administrative structure that Congress enacted” (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted)); see also ETSI Pipeline Pro-
ject v. Missouri, 484 U. S. 495, 509–510 (1988). 

2 
The  relief  that  Congress  has  extended  to  removable  al-
iens likewise confirms that DACA exceeds DHS’ delegated
authority.  Through deferred action, DACA grants tempo-
rary  relief  to  removable  aliens  on  a  programmatic  scale. 
See Texas, 328 F. Supp. 3d, at 714.  But as with lawful pres-
ence, Congress did not expressly grant DHS the authority 
to create categorical exceptions to the statute’s removal re-
quirements.  And again, as with lawful presence, the intri-
cate level of detail in the federal immigration laws regard-
ing  relief  from  removal  indicates  that  DHS  has  no 
discretionary  authority  to  supplement  that  relief  with  an