Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

7 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

Duke, advising her to rescind DACA.  Sessions stated that, 
in  his  legal  opinion,  DACA  took  effect  “through  executive 
action, without proper statutory authority and with no es-
tablished  end-date,  after  Congress’  repeated  rejection  of 
proposed legislation that would have accomplished a simi-
lar result.  Such an open-ended circumvention of immigra-
tion laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by 
the Executive Branch.”  Id., at 877.  The letter also stated 
that  DACA  was  infected  with  the  “same  legal  . . .  defects 
that the courts recognized as to DAPA,” id., at 878, and thus 
DACA would likely be enjoined as well. 

Then-Acting  Secretary  Duke  rescinded  DACA  the  next 
day, also through a memorandum.  Her memorandum be-
gan by noting that DACA “purported to use deferred action 
. . . to confer certain benefits to illegal aliens that Congress
had not otherwise acted to provide by law.”  App. to Pet. for 
Cert. in No. 18–587, at 112a.  It described the history of the
Fifth Circuit litigation, noting that the court had concluded 
that  DAPA  “conflicted  with  the  discretion  authorized  by 
Congress” because  “the  [INA]  flatly  does  not  permit  the 
reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully pre-
sent.”  Id., at 114a (internal quotation marks omitted).  Fi-
nally,  the  memorandum  accepted  then-Attorney  General
Sessions’ legal determination that DACA was unlawful for 
the same reasons as DAPA.  See §1103(a)(1).  In light of the
legal conclusions reached by the Fifth Circuit and the At-
torney  General,  then-Acting  Secretary  Duke  set  forth  the 
procedures for winding down DACA. 

These  three  cases  soon  followed.  In  each,  respondents
claimed,  among  other  things,  that  DACA’s  rescission  was 
arbitrary  and  capricious  under  the  APA.  Two  District 
Courts granted a preliminary nationwide injunction, while 
the third vacated the rescission. 

II
  “ ‘[A]n agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and