throbber
Nos. 18-587, 18-588, 18-589
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket