Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of University of California

In 2017, the Trump administration announced the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shielded undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and granted them work permits. The Regents of the University of California, along with individual DACA recipients and states, sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), arguing the decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The case reached the Supreme Court. On June 18, 2020, the Court ruled 5-4 that the DHS's decision to end DACA violated the APA. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found that the government failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the rescission and did not adequately consider the “reliance interests” of the nearly 700,000 DACA recipients. Consequently, the termination was set aside. The ruling allowed DACA recipients to renew their status, temporarily preserving the program. However, the Court did not rule on the legality of DACA itself, leaving the door open for future administrative actions. The decision was a major victory for immigrant rights advocates and a significant check on executive power regarding immigration policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Department of Homeland Security's termination of DACA was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The judgment vacated the termination memorandum and remanded the case to DHS for further proceedings, effectively reinstating the DACA program at that time.

Whether the Department of Homeland Security's decision to rescind the DACA program was reviewable by the courts, and whether the rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” due to the failure to consider reliance interests and provide an adequate justification.

The ruling provided temporary relief to approximately 700,000 DACA recipients (Dreamers), protecting them from immediate deportation and allowing them to continue working and studying legally. It was celebrated by immigrant rights groups as a landmark victory and a defense of human dignity against abrupt policy changes. The decision also set a major precedent limiting executive power, reinforcing the requirement that administrative agencies must follow proper procedures when changing significant policies. It reignited national debate on comprehensive immigration reform and led to subsequent legal and legislative battles over the future of the DACA program.