Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 59.0

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

21 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

IV 

Even  if  I  were  to  accept  the  majority’s  premise  that 
DACA’s rescission required additional policy justifications, 
the  majority’s  reasons  for  setting  aside  the  agency’s  deci-
sion still fail. 

A 

First, the majority claims that the Fifth Circuit discussed 
only  the  legality  of  the  2014  memorandum’s  conferral  of
benefits, not its “forbearance component”—i.e., the decision 
not  to  place  DACA  recipients  into  removal  proceedings. 
Ante, at 20.  The majority, therefore, claims that, notwith-
standing  the  then-Attorney  General’s  legal  conclusion,
then-Acting  Secretary  Duke  was  required  to  consider  re-
voking  DACA  recipients’  lawful  presence  and  other  at-
tendant  benefits  while  continuing  to  defer  their  removal. 
Ante, at 22–23.  Even assuming the majority correctly char-
acterizes the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, it cites no authority for
the  proposition  that  arbitrary  and  capricious  review  re-
quires an agency to dissect an unlawful program piece by 
piece,  scrutinizing  each  separate  element  to  determine 
whether  it  would  independently  violate  the  law,  rather 
than just to rescind the entire program.14 
—————— 
Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 
U. S. 43, 77 (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment).  Putting aside 
this constitutional concern, however, the notice and comment process at
least attempts to provide a “surrogate political process” that takes some
of the sting out of the inherently undemocratic and unaccountable rule-
making process.  Asimow, Interim-Final Rules: Making Haste Slowly, 51 
Admin. L. Rev. 703, 708 (1999). 

14 The majority’s interpretation of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is highly 
questionable.  Because a grant of deferred action renders DACA recipi-
ents  eligible  for  certain  benefits  and work  authorization,  it  is  far  from
clear that the Department could separate DACA’s “forbearance compo-
nent” from the major benefits it conferred without running into yet an-
other APA problem.  The majority points to the fact that, under the Pa-
tient  Protection  and  Affordable  Care  Act  of  2010,  relevant  regulations
exclude  those  receiving  deferred  action  through  DACA  from  coverage.