June 19, 2020 Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California
Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate the DACA program
On June 18, 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program was not in compliance with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). DACA therefore remains the current law of the land, protecting “Dreamers” who applied for benefits under this program.
History of DACA
- In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a memorandum pursuant to the Obama Administration’s stated goal of protecting undocumented minor children who entered the United States without authorization. Created to temporarily shield Dreamers from deportation (“removal”) in two-year renewable grants, DACA also extended benefits to include temporary employment authorization, as well as Social Security and Medicare to children who qualified.
- Following a change in presidential administrations, DHS attempted to rescind DACA in September 2017 and advised that benefits awarded under the program would be discontinued.
Legal Challenges and SCOTUS Decision
- Multiple parties challenged DHS’ 2017 action as an “arbitrary and capricious” violation of the APA—consolidated as Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California.
- Following a change in presidential administrations, DHS attempted to rescind DACA in September 2017 and advised that benefits awarded under the program would be discontinued.
Moving Forward:
- In the near term, DHS must accept applications to renew DACA benefits for those who qualify.
- It is important to note the legality of the DACA program was not affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision, but rather, the Court found DHS’ attempts to discontinue the program lacked adherence to procedural safeguards required by the APA.
- DHS may again attempt to rescind DACA in a manner that comports with APA requirements as required by the Court in yesterday’s decision.
