from JURIST
The Supreme Court today issued a decision that the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was unlawful because it failed to explain adequately why it ended DACA. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court determined that the DACA rescission was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court vacated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) rescission of DACA initiated in 2012. This means that for now DACA recipients’ protection against removal from this country and eligibility for work authorization are maintained. However, according to the decision, the Trump administration has the authority to try again to rescind DACA if it follows the administrative decision-making process the law requires.
If DHS makes a new determination to rescind DACA it must explain why it is choosing to end DACA and in doing so, consider all the relevant policy options and the reliance interests that a rescission would involve. The decision recognizes well-settled administrative law requirements that agencies make rational decisions, refrain from upsetting significant reliance interests, and explain their actions so that they are accountable to the people. However, it also recognizes the administration’s ability to rescind DACA if that rescission follows the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements. The Court’s decision also dismissed further consideration of valid equal protection claims raised in the challenge to DACA’s rescission. The decision is positive for the approximately 700,000 young people known as Dreamers in that their protections under DACA remain at least for now. But they remain in legal limbo subject to the actions of a hostile administration. Federal, state, and local action are required to recognize Dreamers’ contributions to the country that has been their home since they were children and to the contributions of all undocumented people – our neighbors, co-workers, and family – who contribute to the health, economy, and vitality of the U.S.
for the full piece, head to JURIST.com