Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

22 

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

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

The then-Attorney General reviewed the thorough deci-
sions  of  the  District  Court  and  the  Fifth  Circuit.    Those 
courts exhaustively examined the INA’s text and structure, 
the  relevant  provisions  of  other  federal  immigration  stat-
utes, the historical practice of deferred action, and the gen-
eral grants of statutory authority to set immigration policy. 
Both decisions concluded that DAPA and expanded DACA 
violated the carefully crafted federal immigration scheme, 
that such violations could not be justified through reference 
to  past  exercises  of  deferred  action,  and  that  the  general 
grants of statutory authority did not give DHS the power to 
enact such a sweeping nonenforcement program.  Based on 
the  reasoning  of  those  decisions,  then-Attorney  General 
Sessions concluded that DACA was likewise implemented 
without  statutory  authority.  He  directed  DHS  to  restore 
the rule of law.  DHS followed the then-Attorney General’s
legal analysis and rescinded the program.  This legal con-
clusion more than suffices to supply the “reasoned analysis” 
necessary to rescind an unlawful program.  State Farm, 463 
U. S., at 42. 

The majority has no answer except to suggest that this
approach is inconsistent with State Farm.  See ante, at 21– 
22.  But in doing so, the majority ignores the fact that, un-
like the typical “prior policy” contemplated by the Court in 

—————— 
Ante,  at  19,  n. 5.    But  that  misses  the  point.    Those  regulations  were 
promulgated before “anyone with deferred action under the DACA pro-
cess  applie[d]”  for  those  benefits.    See  77  Fed.  Reg.  52616  (2012).    By
contrast, DACA recipients have been eligible for and have received Med-
icare, Social Security, and work authorization for years.  DHS therefore 
is not writing on a blank slate.  Under the majority’s rule, DHS would 
need to amend all relevant regulations and explain why all recipients of
deferred action who have previously received such benefits may no longer
receive them.  Alternatively and perhaps more problematically, it would 
need to provide a reason why other recipients of deferred action should 
continue  to  qualify,  while  DACA  recipients  should  not.    It  thus  seems 
highly likely that the majority’s proposed course of action would be sub-
ject to serious arbitrary and capricious challenges.