DHS v. the Regents of the University of California: An Effort to Save DACA

“No one chooses the circumstances with which they are born into, but we can all choose to make the world better for those who are struggling.”
– Nosa, a DACA recipient

The termination of President Obama’s term and start of President Trump’s term struck fear in the hearts of many Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. DACA was signed into law by President Obama, granting many undocumented children of immigrants temporary legal status in the United States. President Trump was notorious for his xenophobic rhetoric, but particularly notorious for comments he has made about Mexican immigrants. The president claimed that Mexican immigrants were “bringing drugs…crime”, and worked to install a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to make it harder for Mexican immigrants to enter the U.S.

In 2017, Trump announced his plan to end DACA, which would then lead to the deportation of around 800,000 people living in the United States. This decision to terminate the program did not come as a surprise to many, as the US receives the highest number of DACA recipients from Mexico. Many people deemed this decision cruel, callous and xenophobic. President Obama responded to this plan, stating, “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question…we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own…”

Others felt the same way, including President Janet Napolitano of the University of California. In 2017, the Regents of the University of California challenged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), asking what grounds the department could end the program. In 2018, the University of California received a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit. This ruling was then contested by DHS, with the case eventually making its way to the Supreme Court. Let’s examine the facts and recent ruling of the case (DHS v. the Regents of the University of California) and what policy changes are currently in motion to ensure that this program is not contested again.

The Facts of the Case

After losing the case in lower courts, the Department of Homeland Security became the petitioner before the Supreme Court. The respondents – Janet Napolitano and the University of California – argued that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and publish their regulations.

The respondents in the case stated that the Department of Homeland Security’s actions violated section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which states that every action the agency takes to invalidate a particular policy cannot be based on “arbitrary” or “capricious” acts. The language of the law is broad and doesn’t particularly define what an arbitrary or capricious act could be, and that is why the Department of Homeland Security believed it was within its right to eliminate DACA, while the respondents of the case disagreed.

In addition to the violation of the APA, the respondents stated that the administration was trying to find a mistake in the law and never intended to comply with or amend it, because the agency failed to provide it to the public to comment and leave notice on the policy before attempting to terminate it. The respondents also mentioned that the new administration’s actions to deport people without due process of law was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, demonstrating the administration’s discriminatory actions against immigrants.

The petitioners of the case (Department of Homeland Security) argued that the program could be terminated on the grounds that it was created, “without proper statutory authority and with no established end date.” The DHS defended this argument on the basis of a claim that DACA was “[an] unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of the Regents of the University of California, as they stated that the attempt to quash DACA was based on arbitrary and capricious acts. The Court stated in its decision that the program was created for granting undocumented immigrants relief, and that it can be subject to judicial review, but not flat-out terminated on the grounds brought up by the Trump administration. The Court also reiterated that all federal agencies must follow APA guidelines when planning to terminate programs. Ultimately, this ruling demonstrated that the Trump administration had no legal right to end the program and set further precedent for any attempted efforts to terminate other federal programs like DACA.

Proposed Policy Change by the Biden Administration

The Supreme Court’s decision brought much solace to many families in the U.S., but also raised concerns regarding the path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Congress is currently working on the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which upholds President Biden’s attempts to allow DACA recipients a path to citizenship. This path provides undocumented immigrants five years of provisional status (which grants the right to work anywhere in the U.S.), and enables them to become green card holders for three years. The bill also works to remove the word “alien” from law and replace it with “non-citizen,” in response to pressure from progressive activists and humanitarians to be inclusive and remove xenophobic language from U.S. immigration law.

The Biden administration is making an effort to ensure security for DACA recipients, but only time will tell how secure these protections will be.

To learn more about the specifics of the DACA plan and what organizations are doing to secure this program, check out the following articles:

DACA Leaves Recipients Vulnerable to Status Changes

Exploring legislative solutions: forging a path to citizenship for Dreamers

The US Citizenship Act of 2021: What’s Inside and Who Could be Eligible for Immigration Relief

Organizations working to save DACA