article: On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the 9th Circuit's decision in this case that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully when it rescinded DACA, because its reasons for rescission were insufficient. <hr> The Regents of the University of California (UC) and Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California, filed this lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The complaint was filed on September 8, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to the complaint, DACA has benefited approximately 800,000 individuals brought to the U.S. as children “through no choice of their own.” Under DACA, applicants who met certain criteria were eligible for deferred immigration action for two-year periods, pending approval of their applications. As the complaint stated, “DACA allowed these individuals to live, study, and work in the United States without fear that they could be arrested and deported at any time,” and so they “were able to pursue opportunities in higher education, to more readily obtain driver’s licenses and access lines of credit, to obtain jobs and access to certain Social Security and Medicare benefits, and to contribute to their communities and American society.” The plaintiffs stated that these individuals - known as Dreamers - have enabled the nation and UC to greatly benefit from their presence as students and employees at the university. The plaintiffs stated the Dreamers contribute significantly to UC life, “expanding the intellectual vitality of the school, filling crucial roles as medical residents, research assistants, and student government leaders, and increasing the diversity of the community.” Plaintiff Janet Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security who designed and implemented DACA in 2012. But the revocation of DACA, the plaintiffs argued, threatened the Dreamers with “expulsion from the only country that they call home.” Moreover, the plaintiffs argued, DHS did not offer any “reasoned basis” for revoking DACA and did so in violation of legally required procedures. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’s justification for revocation is that a related but ultimately separate program - Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) - is illegal. The plaintiffs asserted that this justification is based on “an incorrect legal premise” as the two programs “were governed by different sets of rules, applied to different individuals, and conferred different benefits” and that “no court has held that DACA is unlawful.” Further, the plaintiffs argued that in not accounting for the Dreamers' strong reliance on DACA, DHS violated Supreme Court precedent requiring agencies to provide “more substantial justification” for policy changes when there is significant reliance on the preexisting policy. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’s revocation of DACA violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on Sept. 8, but then reassigned to Judge Hon. William Alsup on Sept. 12. On Sept. 18, the court related this case to <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16144"><i>State of California v. Department of Homeland Security</i></a>, Case No. 17-cv-05235. Two days later, the court related two more cases to this one: <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16160"><i>Garcia v. United States of America</i></a>, No. 17-cv-05380, and <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16156"><i>City of San Jose v. Trump</i></a>, No. 17-cv-05329. On Oct. 16, <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16220"><i>County of Santa Clara v. Trump</i></a>, No. 17-cv-05813, was added as a related case. All are summarized in this Clearinghouse. On Oct. 6, the defendants filed the administrative record, available <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-NY-0051-0008.pdf">here</a>, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception to the decision to rescind it. On Oct. 17, after the plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission, specifically related documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court on Oct. 18 in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court denied staying proceedings on Oct. 19, and the defendants appealed the next day by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the district court and emergency motion for stay. On Oct. 23, the district court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until DACA would end on March 5, 2018. On Nov. 1, in the district court, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from rescinding DACA, arguing that the rescission "violate[d] the fundamental prohibition on arbitrary agency action imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act" by not providing a reasoned basis for it. That same day, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the rescission is an enforcement action "presumed immune from judicial review" and that the government provided ample explanation for the rescission based on DAPA's enjoinment. On Nov. 16, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered. The District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by Nov 22. 875 F.3d 1200. On Nov. 17, the federal government filed an emergency motion noting that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the Supreme Court no later than Nov. 20, and requesting that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the forthcoming petition. On Nov. 21, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction currently lies with the district court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus. 875 F.3d 1177. Meanwhile, in the District Court, Judge Alsup on Nov. 20 agreed to stay all discovery until Dec. 22, at which point the augmented administrative record was due. On Dec. 1, 2017, the government filed notice that they appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court. On Dec. 21 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case, arguing that the district court should have stayed implementation of the Oct. 17 order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government’s threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary’s determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record." 138 S.Ct. 443. The same day, the district court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. On Jan. 9, 2018, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction from Nov. 1, 2017 and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. 877 F.3d 1080. The order indicated the court would separately dismiss the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the recession. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who never before received deferred action. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on Jan. 12, dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims as well the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. 298 F.Supp.3d 1304. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases). The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 16, 2018. The government also sought certiorari from the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, arguing that the Supreme Court's immediate review was warranted because of how long the appeal would take in the Ninth Circuit and how time sensitive the issue was. The Supreme Court denied cert without prejudice on Feb. 26, 2018, indicating the justices assume "that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case." 138 S.Ct. 1182. The related cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit for the purposes of appeal. From February through April 2018, the parties filed their briefs. Meanwhile, the following entities filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs: historians, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Communications Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Union of Painters and Allied Traders, United Farm Workers of America, United We Dream, public education groups, current and former prosecutors and law enforcement leaders, over 100 religious organizations, higher education institutions, over 100 companies and associations, the Bar Association of San Francisco, former federal immigration and homeland security officials, law professors and scholars, the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Anti-Defamation League, social justice organizations, legal services organizations, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, California Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Partnership for Educational Justice, DelawareCAN, HawaiiKidsCAN, NewMexicoKidsCAN, Virginia Excels, various cities and counties, the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, various ACLU branches. The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5, 2018. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Nov. 8, 2018. 908 F.3d 476. The panel held that the government's decision to rescind DACA was reviewable because it was based on a belief that law foreclosed any alternative because the agency lacked authority rather than on exercise of discretion. The panel further concluded the decision was reviewable because the government based rescission only on the belief that DACA went beyond DHS' authority and so the APA's bar did not apply, and the decision did not fall within the three discrete occasions when the INA bars judicial review of DHS decisions. As to the merits of the preliminary injunction, the panel held that "DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion" and the government's belief that DACA was illegal was wrong. Thus, the panel concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The panel also held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because it "promotes uniformity in immigration enforcement, and is necessary to provide the plaintiffs here with complete redress." Id. In November 2018, while the appeal was pending, the Government simultaneously filed three petitions for certiorari before judgment, in this case, <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16162"><i>National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Trump</i></a>, and <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15462"><i>Vidal v. Nielsen</i></a>, also challenging the DACA rescission. In both this case and <i>Vidal v. Nielsen</i>, the district courts had granted a nationwide injunction to maintain the DACA program. In <i>NAACP v. Trump</i>, the district court also found that the vacatur of rescission was proper, but later granted a limited stay for certain DACA applications pending appeal. All three cases were appealed to the Circuit courts as well. On June 28, 2019, after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the nationwide injunction (on Nov. 8 the previous year), but before rulings from the other two Circuits, the Supreme Court granted the petitions and consolidated the cases for argument. 908 F.3d 476; 139 S.Ct. 2779. The case was argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on November 12, 2019. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants did not follow proper APA procedures. On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA, that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program, and that the rescission was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious in violation of the APA. 140 S. Ct. 1891. Following the Supreme Court's decision, in another case challenging the DACA recession, <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16202"><i>Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security</i></a>, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandate to reinstate DACA and set aside the recession memo on a nationwide basis on June 30, 2020. On July 17, 2020, the District Court of Maryland ordered DHS to reinstate DACA as it existed before the issuance of the recession memo and ordered DHS to resume accepting initial DACA applications. However, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf instead issued a memorandum entitled "Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" on July 28, 2020 ("Wolf Memorandum"). In this memo, Acting Secretary Wolf stated that he would reconsider DACA's future in light of the Supreme Court's decision. In the interim, the memo instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. Later in August, Deputy Director for Policy for USCIS Joseph Edlow issued a memorandum implementing the Wolf Memorandum. On August 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 3, 2020. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs substituted some of the defendants to reflect new individuals occupying the relevant roles and to add additional responsible officials, including Deputy Director for Policy Edlow. The amended complaint argued that the Acting Secretary Wolf actions were invalid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Action, Homeland Security Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because he lacked proper authority to issue the Wolf Memorandum. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Wolf Memorandum and Edlow Memorandum violated the APA because Wolf and Edlow acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction preventing the defendants from altering or limiting DACA program and vacating the Wolf and Edlow Memoranda. The parties agreed to a briefing schedule on forthcoming motions for summary judgment. Though the parties in this case have yet to file motions for summary judgment and the court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' amended complaint, on December 4, the court in <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15462"><i>Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen</i></a> and <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16130"><i>State of New York v. Trump</i></a> ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017 after it found that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary. The order required DHS to accept initial DACA applications, accept advance parole applications, and grant DACA renewals for two-years. On December 7, 2020 <a href = "https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/consideration-of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca">USCIS</a> updated their website and indicated that effective that day, USCIS would accept initial applications, extend one-year DACA renewals to two-years, and accept applications for advance parole. Then, in early 2021, President Biden took office. On the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2021), President Biden signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General “to preserve and fortify DACA.” In light of potential additional agency action to implement the memorandum, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay further proceedings and vacate pending deadlines on March 22, 2021. They agreed to provide the court with status updates every 60 days. The first is due May 24, 2021. This case is ongoing.
summary: The Regents of the University of California filed this lawsuit challenging DHS's revocation of DACA on September 8, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs stated that DACA recipients have enabled the nation and the university to greatly benefit from their presence as students and employees at the university. The plaintiffs argued that DHS’ revocation of DACA violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. On Jan. 9, 2018, the court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the recession. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Nov. 8, 2018. The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5 which was granted on July 3, 2019. On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA and that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. DHS then issued a memorandum on July 28, 2020, stating that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf would reconsider DACA's future and in the interim, instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that Wold did not have the authority to issue the memo and that Wolf's actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Though the parties in this case have yet to file motions for summary judgment and the court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' amended complaint, on December 4, the court in <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15462"><i>Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen</i></a> and <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16130"><i>State of New York v. Trump</i></a> ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017. On December 7, 2020, USCIS updated its website to indicate that effective that day it would accept initial DACA applications, extend renewals to two years, and accept applications for advance parole. On January 20, 2021, President Biden took office and signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General “to preserve and fortify DACA.” The parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending the implementation of this memorandum. As of May 14, 2021, this case is ongoing.