Catholic University Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States in DHS v. Regents on June 18, 2020, decided to stall the Trump administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy that the Obama administration created contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)––even though in 2016 the Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy, which mirrors DACA. This blunder offhandedly sacrifices the Supreme Court’s reputation as nonpartisan by enlisting itself as the future arbiter of administrative issues with self-evident resolutions and deciding contrary to those resolutions to endorse a political agenda. Now, when a President acts unlawfully through their administrative agencies, subsequent Presidents who wish to uphold their constitutional obligation and reverse those prior actions has to plea to the Supreme Court and satisfy the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the DHS v. Regents opinion, held that the rescission of DACA by the Trump administration was reviewable and also arbitrary and capricious against the APA but failed to consider the illegality of DACA in the Court’s analysis.
This note illustrates the illegality of DACA utilizing the Texas v. United States case that imposed the injunction on DAPA, juxtaposing the two policies. The note recommences with an analysis of DHS v. Regents revealing why the ruling is contrary to the Constitution, Immigration Nationality Act, Homeland Security Act, and the APA. Lastly, the note reveals the ramifications of the Regents' holding, citing the Trump administration's twist on midnight rulemaking.
Heirs of an Administration: Unlawful Executive Actions,
Cath. U. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol71/iss2/10
Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons