Trump v. NAACP

Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

This case was consolidated with Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California and McAleenan v. Vidal. Certiorari was granted under Rule 11, prior to the issuing of judgments by the courts of appeals, because the case is of such “imperative public importance” as to require “immediate determination” in the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e). Following the per curiam decision in United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was unlawful and would likely be struck on the same grounds as the related immigration policies in Texas. DHS issued a recission memorandum, stating that DACA would “wind down” rather than being terminated immediately. Respondents filed suit in district court, which granted summary judgment for Respondents and vacated DHS’s recission of DACA. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Petitioner argues that the decision to wind down DACA is not judicially reviewable because such decisions are within the agency’s discretion and because judicial review is barred under the Immigration and Nationality Act “prior to the issuance of a final removal order.” Petitioner further argues that the decision to wind down DACA is lawful for the following reasons: it is not arbitrary or capricious due to the “immediate risk” of DACA’s complete invalidation following the decision in Texas, it is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment requirements, it does not infringe upon Respondents’ rights to equal protection and due process, and it makes no changes in policy concerning the use of personal information obtained through DACA.