`
`
`
`IN THE
`pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë=
`_______________
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
`ET AL.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`_______________
`KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF
`HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`_______________
`On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court
`Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit And
`Writ Of Certiorari Before Judgment To The United
`States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit
`_______________
`Brief for DACA Recipient Respondents, Make the
`Road New York, County of Santa Clara, and
`Service Employees International Union Local 521
`_______________
`THEODORE B. OLSON
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.
`ETHAN D. DETTMER
` COUNSEL OF RECORD
`JONATHAN N. SOLEIMANI
`STUART F. DELERY
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`MATTHEW S. ROZEN
`333 South Grand Avenue
`ANDREW J. WILHELM
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`SURIA M. BAHADUE
`(213) 229-7000
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`MARK D. ROSENBAUM
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`JUDY LONDON
`(202) 955-8500
`PUBLIC COUNSEL
`TOlson@gibsondunn.com
`610 South Ardmore Avenue
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90005
`(213) 385-2977
`
`
`Counsel for DACA Recipient Respondents in No. 18-587
`(Additional Captions and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
`
`
`
`
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
`ET AL.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
`COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`_______________
`On Writ Of Certiorari Before Judgment To The
`United States Court Of Appeals For The
`District Of Columbia Circuit
`_______________
`
`
`
`ERWIN CHEMERINSKY
`UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
`BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW*
`215 Boalt Hall
`Berkeley, CA 94720
`(510) 642-6483
`
`LAURENCE H. TRIBE
`HARVARD LAW SCHOOL*
`1575 Massachusetts Avenue
`Cambridge, MA 02138
`(617) 495-1767
`
`
`
`LUIS CORTES ROMERO
`IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY & LITIGATION
`CENTER, PLLC
`19309 68th Avenue South,
`Suite R102
`Kent, WA 98032
`(253) 872-4730
`
`LEAH M. LITMAN
`UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
`LAW SCHOOL*
`3226 Jeffries Hall
`Ann Arbor, MI 48109
`(734) 764-0549
`
`Additional Counsel for DACA Recipient Respondents in No. 18-587
`
`
`
`
`*Affiliation for identification purposes only
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL J. WISHNIE
`MUNEER I. AHMAD
`MARISOL ORIHUELA
`JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL
`SERVICES ORGANIZATION
`P.O. Box 209090
`New Haven, CT 06520
`(203) 432-4800
`
`KAREN C. TUMLIN
`COOPERATING ATTORNEY
`JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL
`SERVICES ORGANIZATION
`P.O. Box 209090
`New Haven, CT 06520
`(323) 316-0944
`
`
`AMY S. TAYLOR
`PAIGE AUSTIN
`MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
`301 Grove Street
`Brooklyn, NY 11237
`(718) 418-7690
`
`
`
`TRUDY S. REBERT
`NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
`CENTER
`P.O. Box 721361
`Jackson Heights, NY 11372
`(646) 867-8793
`
`
`
`ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
`MAYRA B. JOACHIN
`NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
`CENTER
`3450 Wilshire Blvd.
`#108-62
`Los Angeles, CA 90010
`(213) 639-3900
`
`SCOTT FOLETTA
`MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
`92-10 Roosevelt Avenue
`Jackson Heights, NY 11372
`(929) 244-3456
`
`Counsel for DACA Recipient Respondents and
`Make the Road New York in No. 18-589
`
`
`
`
`
`STACEY M. LEYTON
`ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
`177 Post Street, Suite 300
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`(415) 421-7151
`
`Counsel for Respondents County of
`Santa Clara and Service Employees
`International Union Local 521 in
`No. 18-587
`
`
`JAMES R. WILLIAMS
`GRETA S. HANSEN
`LAURA S. TRICE
`MARCELO QUIÑONES
`OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`70 West Hedding Street
`East Wing, Ninth Floor
`San Jose, CA 95110
`(408) 299-5900
`
`Counsel for Respondent County of
`Santa Clara in No. 18-587
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`Since 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Ar-
`rivals (“DACA”) policy has enabled nearly 800,000 un-
`documented individuals who arrived in the United
`States as children to live and work here without fear
`of deportation, so long as they qualify and remain eli-
`gible for the policy. In September 2017, the Attorney
`General issued a one-page, conclusory letter reversing
`the government’s longstanding legal position. Bound
`by the Attorney General’s advice, the Acting Secretary
`of Homeland Security abruptly issued a new immigra-
`tion enforcement policy that terminated DACA.
`The questions presented in these consolidated
`cases are:
`1. Whether either the Administrative Procedure
`Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), or the Immigration
`and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), (g),
`precludes judicial review of the Secretary’s decision to
`terminate the DACA policy.
`2. Whether the Secretary’s decision was “arbi-
`trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
`not in accordance with law,” in violation of the APA, 5
`U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`In No. 18-587, Petitioners are Donald J. Trump,
`President of the United States; William P. Barr, At-
`torney General of the United States; Kevin K.
`McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security;
`U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and the
`United States.
`Respondents are the Regents of the University of
`California; Janet Napolitano, President of the Univer-
`sity of California; the State of California; the State of
`Maine; the State of Maryland; the State of Minnesota;
`the City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez
`Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Men-
`doza; Norma Ramirez; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; the
`County of Santa Clara; and Service Employees Inter-
`national Union Local 521.*
`In No. 18-588, Petitioners are Donald J. Trump,
`President of the United States; William P. Barr, At-
`torney General of the United States; Kevin K.
`McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security;
`U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Im-
`migration and Customs Enforcement; the U.S. De-
`partment of Homeland Security; and the United
`States.
`Respondents are the Trustees of Princeton Uni-
`versity; Microsoft Corporation; Maria De La Cruz Per-
`ales Sanchez; National Association for the Advance-
`ment of Colored People; American Federation of
`Teachers, AFL-CIO; and the United Food and Com-
`mercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
`CLC.
`
` * After the Complaint was filed in September 2017, Viridiana
`Chabolla Mendoza was granted Lawful Permanent Resident sta-
`tus.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`In No. 18-589, Petitioners are Kevin K.
`McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security;
`the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; William
`P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States; Don-
`ald J. Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Cit-
`izenship and Immigration Services; U.S. Immigration
`and Customs Enforcement; and the United States.
`Respondents are Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal,
`Antonio Alarcon, Eliana Fernandez, Carlos Vargas,
`Mariano Mondragon, and Carolina Fung Feng, on be-
`half of themselves and all other similarly situated in-
`dividuals; Make the Road New York, on behalf of it-
`self, its members, its clients, and all similarly situated
`individuals; the State of New York; the State of Mas-
`sachusetts; the State of Washington; the State of Con-
`necticut; the State of Delaware; the District of Colum-
`bia; the State of Hawaii; the State of Illinois; the State
`of Iowa; the State of New Mexico; the State of North
`Carolina; the State of Oregon; the State of Pennsylva-
`nia; the State of Rhode Island; the State of Vermont;
`the State of Virginia; and the State of Colorado.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1
`STATEMENT .............................................................. 3
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 14
`ARGUMENT ............................................................. 17
`I. DHS’s New Immigration Enforcement
`Policy Terminating DACA Is Judicially
`Reviewable .................................................... 17
`A. The APA Does Not Bar Judicial
`Review .................................................... 18
`1. DHS’s Action Is Not A
`Traditionally Unreviewable
`Nonenforcement Decision ................ 18
`2. There Are Meaningful
`Standards For Judicial Review ....... 21
`B. The INA Does Not Bar Judicial
`Review .................................................... 28
`II. DHS Violated The APA By Failing To
`Engage In Reasoned Decisionmaking ......... 29
`A. The Government Violated the APA
`By Failing To Explain Its Policy
`Change Or Acknowledge Its Prior
`Stance On DACA’s Legality ................... 30
`B. The Government Violated the APA
`By Failing To Consider The Costs
`Of Its Decision Or The Interests
`Affected ................................................... 33
`C. The Decision Violates the APA
`Because Its Central Legal
`Premise—That DACA Is
`Unlawful—Is Wrong .............................. 37
`
`
`
`v
`
`D. The Government's Other Proffered
`Rationales Do Not Justify DHS’s
`Policy ...................................................... 48
`1. Concerns About Litigation
`Risk Do Not Justify The
`Decision ............................................ 48
`2. Secretary Nielsen’s
`Memorandum Does Not Justify
`The Decision..................................... 53
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Arizona v. United States,
`567 U.S. 387 (2012) .................................... 3, 39, 44
`
`Arpaio v. Obama,
`797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ................................ 31
`
`Berger v. United States,
`295 U.S. 78 (1935) ................................................ 43
`
`Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best
`Freight Sys., Inc.,
`419 U.S. 281 (1974) ........................................ 30, 33
`
`Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v.
`United States,
`371 U.S. 156 (1962) .............................................. 48
`
`Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 682 (2014) .............................................. 38
`
`Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v.
`Guest Servs., Inc.,
`630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .............................. 25
`
`Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in
`Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
`922 F.3d 480 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .............................. 32
`
`Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v.
`Volpe,
`401 U.S. 402 (1971) ........................................ 24, 53
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
`496 U.S. 384 (1990) .............................................. 48
`
`Crane v. Johnson,
`783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................ 31
`
`Crowley Caribbean Transp., Inc. v.
`Pena,
`37 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ................................ 20
`
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994) .............................................. 32
`
`Dames & Moore v. Regan,
`453 U.S. 654 (1981) .............................................. 42
`
`Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) .................................. passim
`
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump,
`354 F. Supp. 3d 1094
`(N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................... 54
`
`Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,
`136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) .................................... 30, 34
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ........................................ 26, 35
`
`Franklin v. Massachusetts,
`505 U.S. 788 (1992) .............................................. 23
`
`Heckler v. Chaney,
`470 U.S. 821 (1985) .................................. 19, 20, 22
`
`
`
`viii
`
`ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive
`Engineers,
`482 U.S. 270 (1987) ........................................ 23, 25
`
`INS v. St. Cyr,
`533 U.S. 289 (2001) .............................................. 17
`
`Jennings v. Rodriguez,
`138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) ...................................... 28, 29
`
`Judulang v. Holder,
`565 U.S. 42 (2011) ................................................ 27
`
`Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v.
`United States,
`136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) .......................................... 37
`
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) .................................... 22, 40
`
`United States ex rel. Knauff v.
`Shaughnessy,
`338 U.S. 537 (1950) .............................................. 43
`
`M.G.U. v. Nielsen,
`325 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D.D.C. 2018) ...................... 54
`
`Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC,
`135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) .............................. 18, 19, 28
`
`Make the Road N.Y. v. U.S. Dep’t
`Homeland Sec.,
`No. 1:18-cv-2445, ECF No. 63-1
`(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2019) ................................ 11, 50
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Marbury v. Madison,
`5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ............................... 22
`
`Mass. Trs. of E. Gas & Fuel Assocs. v.
`United States,
`377 U.S. 235 (1964) .................................. 51, 53, 58
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) .............................................. 20
`
`Michigan v. EPA,
`135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) .................. 26, 29, 34, 35, 36
`
`Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA,
`829 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ........................ 34, 57
`
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury
`Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) .................................................. 25
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n. of U.S., Inc.
`v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .......................................... 37, 48
`
`Ms. L. v. ICE,
`310 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (S.D. Cal.
`2018) ..................................................................... 54
`
`In re Nielsen,
`No. 17-3345, ECF No. 171
`(2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2017).......................................... 10
`
`Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC,
`395 U.S. 367 (1969) .............................................. 41
`
`
`
`x
`
`Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination
`Comm.,
`525 U.S. 471 (1999) .................. 5, 28, 29, 40, 41, 45
`
`Rucho v. Common Cause,
`139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) .......................................... 45
`
`Rutledge v. United States,
`517 U.S. 292 (1996) .............................................. 33
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`318 U.S. 80 (1943) .......................................... 29, 48
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .............................................. 48
`
`Sessions v. Dimaya,
`138 S. Ct. 1204 ............................................... 43, 45
`
`Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v.
`Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,
`624 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .............................. 37
`
`SPV-LS, LLC v. Transamerica Life
`Ins. Co.,
`912 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2019) .............................. 25
`
`Texas v. United States,
`136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) ............................................ 8
`
`Texas v. United States,
`328 F. Supp. 3d 662 (S.D. Tex. 2018) .................. 52
`
`Texas v. United States,
`809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) .... 8, 21, 32, 44, 51, 52
`
`
`
`xi
`
`Trump v. Hawaii,
`138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) .............................. 25, 43, 54
`
`United States v. Armstrong,
`517 U.S. 456 (1996) .............................................. 42
`
`United States v. Riverside Bayview
`Homes, Inc.,
`474 U.S. 121 (1985) .............................................. 42
`
`Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,
`573 U.S. 302 (2014) .............................................. 40
`
`Walter O. Boswell Mem’l Hosp. v.
`Heckler,
`749 F.2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .............................. 36
`
`Wayte v. United States,
`470 U.S. 598 (1985) .............................................. 42
`
`Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish &
`Wildlife Serv.,
`139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) ............................................ 17
`
`White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA,
`748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ............................ 36
`
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
`Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) .............................................. 42
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) ................................................... 18
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) ............................................. 14, 18
`
`
`
`xii
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ........................... 10, 16, 27, 29, 47
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) ................................................... 27
`
`5 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) ......................................... 51
`
`6 U.S.C. § 202(5) .............................................. 4, 28, 39
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) ................................................. 21
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3) ................................................. 39
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B) ............................................ 38
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(2) ................................................. 41
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) ..................................... 15, 28, 29
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) .................................... 15, 28, 29, 41
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) ........................................... 5, 41
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1427 .......................................................... 51
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(2)-(4) .............................................. 6
`
`Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,
`Pub. L. No. 110-161, Div. A, Tit. II,
`121 Stat. 1844, 2051 ............................................ 28
`
`Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,
`Pub. L. No. 114-113, Div. F, Tit. II,
`129 Stat. 2242, 2497 ............................................ 28
`
`REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
`13, Div. B., § 201(c)(2)(B)(viii), 119
`Stat. 302 (2005) ................................................ 6, 42
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
`107-56, § 423(b), 115 Stat. 361 ............................ 41
`
`Regulations
`
`8 C.F.R. § 1.3(a)(4)(vi) ........................................... 6, 38
`
`8 C.F.R. § 109.1(b)(6) (1982) ........................... 5, 40, 41
`
`8 C.F.R. § 212.5 ........................................................... 6
`
`8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14) ................................. 5, 38, 40
`
`42 C.F.R. § 417.422(h) ........................................... 6, 38
`
`Other Authorities
`
`American Immigration Council,
`Executive Grants of Temporary
`Immigration Relief, 1956-Present
`(Oct. 2014),
`https://tinyurl.com/y27k6qx8 ....................... 4, 5, 46
`
`Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Record Number
`of Deportations in 2012, Pew
`Research Center (Jan. 24, 2014),
`https://tinyurl.com/y292hjnh. .............................. 47
`
`Andorra Bruno et al., Cong. Research
`Serv., Analysis of June 15, 2012
`DHS Memorandum, Exercising
`Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect
`to Individuals Who Came to the
`United States as Children (July 13,
`2012) ..................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`DHS Secretary on Trump’s Reported
`Vulgar Comments, DACA Policy,
`CBS News (Jan. 16, 2018),
`https://tinyurl.com/y8ekmzar .............................. 44
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 627, 100th Cong., 2d
`Sess. 6 (1988) .......................................................... 4
`
`Jeffrey S. Passel & Mark Hugo Lopez,
`Pew Research Center, Up to 1.7
`Million Unauthorized Immigrant
`Youth May Benefit from New
`Deportation Rules (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................... 46
`
`Memorandum from Doris Meissner,
`Commissioner of Immigration and
`Naturalization Service, on
`Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
`(Nov. 17, 2000), https://tinyurl.com/
`y6hw8gsq .............................................................. 45
`
`Memorandum from Johnny N. Wil-
`liams, Exec. Assoc. Comm’r, Office of
`Field Operations, to Reg’l Dirs. et al.,
`Unlawful Presence (June 12, 2002) ..................... 38
`
`Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.25[4]
`(2019) .................................................................... 26
`
`Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[6]
`(2019) .................................................................... 26
`
`No Free Rides Act, H.R. 3090, 115th
`Cong. (June 28, 2017) .......................................... 44
`
`
`
`xv
`
`The Separation of Powers Act of 2015,
`H.R. 29, 114th Cong. (Jan. 6, 2015) .................... 44
`
`Tom K. Wong & Hillary Kosnac, Does
`the Legalization of Undocumented
`Immigrants in the US Encourage
`Unauthorized Immigration from
`Mexico? An Empirical Analysis of the
`Moral Hazard of Legalization
`International Migration 159 (2017) .................... 56
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Constitution and federal immigration laws
`afford the Executive Branch significant authority to
`set immigration enforcement priorities. For decades,
`presidential administrations
`from both political
`parties have used that authority to permit certain
`categories of individuals to remain and work in the
`United States. The principal check on the Executive’s
`authority in this area is procedural: As with other
`exercises of the government’s coercive power, the
`Executive must comply with the Administrative
`Procedure Act
`(“APA”) by giving
`“reasoned
`explanation[s] … that can be scrutinized by courts and
`the interested public.” Dep’t of Commerce v. New
`York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2575-76
`(2019).
` An
`administration may
`impose new or different
`priorities, but only if it adheres to APA requirements
`and clearly states its policy choices so that it can be
`held publicly accountable for them. The judiciary, in
`turn, has a limited but essential role: ensuring that
`the Executive considers and clearly explains the
`consequences of new approaches, especially for those
`who will be profoundly affected by a change.
`This case concerns an immigration policy change
`covering undocumented individuals who arrived in
`the United States as children. Since 2012, the
`Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”)
`policy allowed
`these
`individuals, known as
`“Dreamers,” to obtain an education, work, and
`contribute to this nation and its economy without
`constant fear of deportation. The Secretary of
`Homeland Security announced DACA
`in a
`memorandum that explicitly articulated the factors
`underlying
`the policy:
`the agency’s
`limited
`“enforcement
`resources,”
`DACA
`recipients’
`
`
`
`2
`
`“contribut[ions] to our country,” and the need for a
`“clear
`and
`efficient
`process
`for
`exercising
`prosecutorial discretion” on an “individual basis.”
`Regents Pet. App. 98a-100a. The policy has been
`widely perceived as a success, and many people—
`including DACA recipients, and their families,
`employers, and educational institutions—have made
`significant decisions based on forbearance from
`removal, just as the government intended them to do.
`For many months, the current administration
`maintained and publicly supported DACA. But in
`September 2017, the Secretary suddenly announced a
`new policy that terminated the five-year-old policy,
`threatening deportation of DACA recipients from the
`only country many of them have ever known as home.
`In sharp contrast to the decision adopting DACA, the
`new memorandum came nowhere near satisfying the
`APA’s requirements for reasoned decisionmaking.
`The Secretary did not even mention enforcement
`resources or the significant costs to DACA recipients,
`their families, communities, workplaces, schools, and
`the larger economy.
`The government has offered different rationales
`for the decision over time. But the same fatal flaw
`infects them all: The Secretary’s assertion that DACA
`exceeded her authority. In terminating DACA, the
`Secretary purported to respond to a binding letter
`from the Attorney General stating that DACA is
`unlawful and unconstitutional.
` The
`letter’s
`perfunctory legal analysis included an obvious factual
`error and failed to acknowledge the administration’s
`departure from the Executive Branch’s longstanding
`legal position, as presented to this Court and reflected
`in advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal
`Counsel (“OLC”). In fact, the Secretary’s ostensible
`
`
`
`3
`
`legal premise driving her decision was erroneous:
`DACA is lawful.
` The administration could have left DACA in place.
`It did not have to end this humanitarian policy that
`allows nearly 700,000 people to stay in the only
`country they have ever really known. It did not have
`to eliminate the opportunity for these individuals to
`earn a living to support themselves and their families.
`It did not have to disclaim Executive authority that
`administrations of both parties rightly have exercised
`for decades. But rather than own up to its choice, the
`administration claimed its hands were tied by the
`courts and the law. It is a cardinal principle of
`administrative law that the Executive may not shield
`discretionary policy decisions from scrutiny behind
`erroneous claims that the law allows only one result,
`yet that is what the administration did here.
`The APA demands—and the public deserves—a
`genuine analysis and lucid explanation of the relevant
`policy considerations before reversing a long-standing
`policy and subjecting 700,000
`individuals
`to
`deportation to unfamiliar nations where they may not
`even speak the language. Because DHS failed to meet
`these basic standards, the lower courts correctly set
`aside the new policy.
`STATEMENT
`1. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
`grants immigration officials “broad discretion” to
`pursue removal from the United States of noncitizens
`deemed removable by Congress. Arizona v. United
`States, 567 U.S. 387, 396 (2012). That discretion is
`one of immigration law’s “principal feature[s].” Ibid.
`It reflects the reality that “there simply are not
`enough resources to enforce all of the rules and
`regulations presently on the books,” and that “[i]n
`
`
`
`4
`
`some circumstances”—because Congress “cannot
`possibly [have] contemplate[d] all of the possible
`circumstances in which the [INA] may be applied”—
`“application of the literal letter of the law” would be
`“unconscionable” and “serve no useful purpose.”
`Regents Ct. App. ECF No. 45, at 1215. The INA
`accordingly directs the Secretary of Homeland
`Security
`to
`“[e]stablis[h] national
`immigration
`enforcement policies and priorities.”
` 6 U.S.C.
`§ 202(5).
`Every presidential administration over the past 65
`years has exercised some form of enforcement
`discretion—through more
`than
`thirty separate
`policies—to make categories of undocumented
`noncitizens deemed
`low priority eligible
`for
`forbearance from removal. American Immigration
`Council, Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration
`1956-Present
`3-10
`(Oct.
`2014),
`Relief,
`https://tinyurl.com/y27k6qx8
`(“AIC Report”). The
`Eisenhower, Kennedy,
`Johnson,
`and Nixon
`Administrations, for example, paroled more than
`600,000 Cubans into the United States, and the Ford
`and Carter Administrations paroled in nearly 360,000
`Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.
` Ibid.
`Similarly, from 1960 to 1990, each presidential
`administration used “extended voluntary departure”
`to forbear removal of groups of “otherwise deportable
`aliens” based on their nationality “out of concern that
`… forced repatriation … could endanger their lives or
`safety.” H.R. Rep. No. 627, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 6
`(1988).
` The Reagan and George H.W. Bush
`Administrations’ Family Fairness Program made
`extended voluntary departure available to 1.5 million
`eligible recipients—more than 40 percent of the
`undocumented population at the time—while their
`parents or spouses pursued immigration status under
`
`
`
`5
`
` AIC Report, at 2.
`newly enacted legislation.
`Subsequent administrations used “deferred enforced
`departure” to grant similar relief to 80,000 Chinese
`following the Tiananmen Square protests, 190,000
`Salvadorans after their eligibility for temporary
`protected status expired, and others. Id. at 6-7.
`One way the Executive exercises its enforcement
`discretion is through deferred action, “a regular
`practice” in which the government elects not to seek
`removal of individuals “for humanitarian reasons or
`simply for its own convenience.” Reno v. Am.-Arab
`Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-84 &
`n.8 (1999) (“AADC”). The Executive has granted
`deferred action since the 1970s, Regents Ct. App. ECF
`No. 45, at 1220, and each presidential administration
`since 1997 has adopted deferred action policies
`covering categories of noncitizens. J.A. 822-26. Past
`policies covered battered spouses and human
`trafficking
`survivors awaiting visas,
`students
`displaced by Hurricane Katrina, and surviving
`spouses of U.S. citizens who had “no avenue of
`immigration relief.” Ibid.
`The Executive has long recognized the need for in-
`dividuals granted discretionary relief from removal to
`support themselves and their families. Since 1981,
`federal regulations have expressly authorized recipi-
`ents of deferred action and other exercises of enforce-
`ment discretion to work in the United States. 8 C.F.R.
`§ 109.1(b)(6) (1982); id. § 274a.12(c)(14). Congress
`later codified this authority by permitting employers
`to hire any noncitizen “authorized to be … employed
`by [the INA] or by the Attorney General” (now Secre-
`tary). 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) (emphasis added); 8
`C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14). By statute and regulation,
`
`
`
`6
`
`deferred action recipients may also obtain driver’s li-
`censes, REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13,
`Div. B., § 201(c)(2)(B)(viii), 119 Stat. 302 (2005); par-
`ticipate in Social Security and Medicaid, 8 U.S.C.
`§ 1611(b)(2)-(4); 8 C.F.R. § 1.3(a)(4)(vi); 42 C.F.R.
`§ 417.422(h); and apply for and receive advance pa-
`role, allowing them to travel abroad and re-enter the
`United States, 8 C.F.R. § 212.5.
`2.
`In 2012, Secretary of Homeland Security Ja-
`net Napolitano established the DACA policy. Regents
`Pet. App. 97a-101a. Undocumented individuals who
`arrived in the United States as children and met rig-
`orous criminal background checks and education or
`military service requirements could apply for deferred
`action for renewable two-year periods. Ibid. Both in-
`itial and renewal applications were decided on a “case
`by case basis,” and DHS provided no “assurance[s]
`that relief w[ould] be granted in all cases.” Id. at 99a.
`Indeed, the government does not dispute the Ninth
`Circuit’s determination that DHS actually exercised
`discretion in adjudicating DACA applications. See Re-
`gents Supp. App. 50a-51a. Individuals granted de-
`ferred action could apply for work authorization and
`other benefits pursuant to existing statutes and regu-
`lation. Id. at 12a. Secretary Napolitano explained
`that immigration laws were not “designed to remove
`productive young people to countries where they may
`not have lived or even speak the language,” and DHS’s
`exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” to forbear re-
`moval of these individuals was “especially justified”
`because they had “already contributed to our country
`in significant ways” and “lack the intent to violate the
`law.” Regents Pt. App. 98a-99a. She adopted DACA
`to “ensure that [the government’s] enforcement re-
`sources are not expended on these low priority cases.”
`Ibid. The government actually encouraged eligible
`
`
`
`7
`
`noncitizens to apply to participate in DACA. See
`Supp. Pet. App. 73a (Ninth Circuit “agreeing” that the
`government’s “assurances were crucial to inducing
`[DACA recipients] to apply for DACA”) (quotation
`marks omitted); Regents Dist. Ct. ECF No. 121-1, at
`181, 227; id. ECF No. 1 ¶ 33.
`DACA has allowed nearly 800,000 people—
`including nearly 700,000 current recipients—to build
`productive
`lives
`in the United States without
`persistent fear of deportation. NAACP Pet. App. 5a.
`Based upon DACA, they have organized their lives to
`advance their education, serve in the U.S. military,
`start businesses, have families, and make other life-
`changing decisions. J.A. 435-49, 652-70. Like many
`other DACA recipients, the individual respondents
`here—Dulce Garcia, Miriam Gonzalez Avila, Saul
`Jimenez
`Suarez, Norma Ramirez,
`Jirayut
`Latthivongskorn, Martín Jonathan Batalla Vidal,
`Antonio Alarcon, Eliana Fernandez, Carlos Vargas,
`Mariano Mondragon, and Carolina Fung Feng—have
`pursued new paths and dreams previously
`unavailable to them. Some have embarked on careers
`as lawyers, medical professionals, and teachers;
`others now can raise families without fear of
`separation, pay for children’s or parents’ health care,
`drive
`family members to school and medical
`appointments, provide a home for their families, or
`advocate for their communities. Id. at 659, 889-910,
`927, 946, 960. DACA recipients are embedded
`throughout the economy; 72% of Fortune 500
`companies have hired DACA recipients. Id. at 605. If
`DACA is eliminated, recipients will face the persistent
`fear of being uprooted from their homes and separated
`from their families. They, their families, and their
`communities will suffer extraordinary losses. Id. at
`435-49, 461.
`
`
`
`8
`
`3. Four years after D