Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

8 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

until Congress confers power upon it.’ ”  Arlington v. FCC, 
569 U. S. 290, 317 (2013) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (quot-
ing  Louisiana  Pub.  Serv.  Comm’n  v.  FCC,  476  U. S.  355, 
374 (1986)).  When an agency exercises power beyond the
bounds of its authority, it acts unlawfully.  See, e.g., SAS 
Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U. S. ___, ___, n. (2018) (slip op., 
at 11, n.).  The 2012 memorandum creating DACA provides
a poignant illustration of ultra vires agency action.

DACA alters how the immigration laws apply to a certain 
class  of  aliens.  “DACA  [recipients]  primarily  entered  the
country either by overstaying a visa or by entering without 
inspection, and the INA instructs that aliens in both classes 
are  removable.”  Texas  v.  United  States,  328  F. Supp.  3d
662,  713  (SD  Tex.  2018)  (footnote  omitted).  But  DACA 
granted its recipients deferred action, i.e., a decision to “de-
cline  to  institute  [removal]  proceedings,  terminate  [re-
moval] proceedings, or decline to institute a final order of 
[removal].”  Reno  v.  American-Arab  Anti-Discrimination 
Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 484 (1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted).  Under  other  regulations,  recipients  of  deferred
action are deemed lawfully present for purposes of certain 
federal benefits.  See supra, at 4.  Thus, DACA in effect cre-
ated a new exception to the statutory provisions governing
removability and, in the process, conferred lawful presence
on an entire class of aliens. 

To  lawfully  implement  such  changes,  DHS  needed  a 
grant of authority from Congress to either reclassify remov-
able DACA recipients as lawfully present, or to exempt the 
entire class of aliens covered by DACA from statutory re-
moval procedures.  No party disputes that the immigration
statutes lack an express delegation to accomplish either re-
sult.  And, an examination of the highly reticulated immi-
gration regime makes clear that DHS has no implicit dis-
cretion to create new classes of lawful presence or to grant
relief from removal out of whole cloth.  Accordingly, DACA 
is substantively unlawful.