Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 38

4 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. 
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CAL. 
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

stage, I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an
executive  decision  disproportionately  harms  the  same  ra-
cial group that the President branded as less desirable mere 
months earlier. 

Finally, the plurality finds nothing untoward in the “spe-
cific sequence of events leading up to the challenged deci-
sion.”  Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Develop-
ment Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 267 (1977).  I disagree.  As late 
as  June  2017,  DHS  insisted  it  remained  committed  to 
DACA,  even  while  rescinding  a  related  program,  the  De-
ferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Perma-
nent Residents.  App. 718–720.  But a mere three months 
later,  DHS  terminated  DACA  without,  as  the  plurality
acknowledges, considering important aspects of the termi-
nation.  The abrupt change in position plausibly suggests 
that  something  other than  questions  about  the  legality of 
DACA  motivated  the  rescission  decision.  Accordingly,  it
raises the possibility of a “significant mismatch between the 
decision . . . made and the rationale . . . provided.”  Depart-
ment  of  Commerce  v.  New  York,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019) 
(slip op., at 26).  Only by bypassing context does the plural-
ity conclude otherwise. 

* 

* 

* 
The facts in respondents’ complaints create more than a
“sheer  possibility  that  a  defendant  has  acted  unlawfully.” 
Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 678.  Whether they ultimately amount
to actionable discrimination should be determined only af-
ter  factual  development  on  remand.  Because  the  Court 
prematurely  disposes  of  respondents’  equal  protection
claims  by  overlooking  the  strength  of  their  complaints,  I
join all but Part IV of the opinion and do not concur in the
corresponding part of the judgment.