Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 34

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

raise  a  plausible  inference  that  the  rescission  was  moti-
vated by animus. 

* 

* 

* 
We  do  not  decide  whether  DACA  or  its  rescission  are 
sound policies.  “The wisdom” of those decisions “is none of 
our  concern.”  Chenery  II,  332  U. S.,  at  207.    We  address 
only whether the agency complied with the procedural re-
quirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its ac-
tion.  Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous is-
sues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything 
to  do  about  the  hardship  to  DACA  recipients.    That  dual 
failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated 
the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a 
reasonable manner.  The appropriate recourse is therefore 
to  remand  to  DHS  so  that  it  may  consider  the  problem 
anew. 

The judgment in NAACP, No. 18–588, is affirmed.7  The 
judgment in Regents, No. 18–587, is vacated in part and re-
versed in part.  And in Batalla Vidal, No. 18–589, the Feb-
ruary  13,  2018  order  granting  respondents’  motion  for  a 
preliminary injunction is vacated, the November 9, 2017 or-
der partially denying the Government’s motion to dismiss
is affirmed in part, and the March 29, 2018 order partially 
denying the balance of the Government’s motion to dismiss 
is reversed in part.  All three cases are remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

7 Our affirmance of the NAACP order vacating the rescission makes it 
unnecessary to examine the propriety of the nationwide scope of the in-
junctions issued by the District Courts in Regents and Batalla Vidal.