The US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful. In a 5-to-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, the Court addressed how federal agencies must handle rescission of existing programs under procedural law.
What changed
The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration because it violated the Administrative Procedure Act in two ways: first, the administration failed to explain why providing temporary forbearance from removal was unlawful; second, it failed to consider whether the program had created “reliance interests” that needed consideration in its decision. These omissions made the decision “arbitrary and capricious.”
Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may reconsider the problem anew.” The Court was careful to note it did not decide the underlying merits of DACA itself, only the lawfulness of the rescission process.
Why it matters
For DACA beneficiaries and practitioners advising them, the decision provides immediate protection: some 650,000 so-called DREAMers can remain safe from deportation for now, while the Trump administration jumps through the administrative hoops that the court said are required before ending the program.
The procedural implications are significant. Any future rescission attempt must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act by articulating rational legal justification and demonstrating that the agency has meaningfully considered reliance interests—the ways beneficiaries and their families have structured their lives around DACA protections (employment, education, housing, family unity). Agencies cannot simply reverse course on longstanding programs without this deliberative process.
Way forward
- For DACA beneficiaries: Confirm your current status and work permit remain valid; consult an immigration attorney if you have questions about your next renewal or the timing of future filings.
- For practitioners: Monitor any new administrative action from DHS on DACA rescission; any new attempt will be subject to the same procedural scrutiny, and you may need to challenge it on APA grounds if the agency repeats the same failures.
- Document reliance: If advising clients on DACA-dependent decisions (education, employment, housing, family sponsorship), contemporaneously document how DACA status motivated those decisions; reliance evidence may be relevant if rescission is attempted again.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and frequently changes; the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act may evolve. Verify all statements against the primary court opinion and consult a licensed immigration attorney before making decisions affecting your status or case strategy.