Nos. 18-587, 18-588, & 18-589
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
`SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
`v.
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
`COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
`STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
`v.
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
`COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL.
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT
`KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOME-
`LAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS
`v.
`MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL.
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF TEXAS, ALABAMA,
`ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA,
`KANSAS, LOUISIANA, NEBRASKA, SOUTH
`CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WEST
`VIRGINIA, AND GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT OF
`MISSISSIPPI AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS
`
`Counsel Listed on Inside Cover
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`KEN PAXTON
`Attorney General of Texas
`
`JEFFREY C. MATEER
`First Assistant
` Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KYLE D. HAWKINS
`Solicitor General
` Counsel of Record
`
`MATTHEW H. FREDERICK
`Deputy Solicitor General
`
`ARI CUENIN
`LANORA C. PETTIT
`Assistant Solicitors General
`
`OFFICE OF THE
` ATTORNEY GENERAL
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, Texas 78711-2548
`kyle.hawkins@oag.texas.gov
`(512) 936-1700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`1. Whether the Department of Homeland Security
`(DHS)’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is judi-
`cially reviewable.
`2. Whether the DHS’s decision to wind down the
`DACA policy is lawful.
`
`
`(I)
`
`

`

`
`
`III
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Questions Presented ............................................................. I 
`Table of Contents ............................................................... III 
`Table of Authorities ........................................................... IV 
`Interest of Amici Curiae ....................................................... 1 
`Summary of Argument ......................................................... 2 
`Argument ................................................................................ 6 
`I.  DACA Is Unlawful. ........................................................ 6 
`A.  DACA contravenes Congress’s extensive
`immigration-enforcement scheme ........................ 8 
`B.  DACA is procedurally unlawful because it was
`promulgated contrary to the APA’s
`requirements ......................................................... 21 
`II.  The Executive’s Decisions Both to Create and to
`Rescind DACA Are Subject to Judicial Review ...... 30 
`III.  The Executive’s Rescission of DACA Was Neither
`Arbitrary Nor Capricious ........................................... 32 
`Conclusion ............................................................................ 36 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IV
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases:
`Am. Bus. Ass’n v. United States,
`627 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ................................. 22, 25
`Am. Mining Cong. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin.,
`995 F.2d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ................................ 24-25
`Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn,
`563 U.S. 125 (2011) ........................................................ 35
`Arizona v. United States,
`567 U.S. 387 (2012) ............................................... passim
`Azar v. Alina Health Servs.,
`139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) .................................................... 28
`Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v.
`Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`563 U.S. 776 (2011) ........................................................ 17
`Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc.,
`419 U.S. 281 (1974) ........................................................ 34
`Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
`371 U.S. 156 (1962) ........................................................ 32
`CASA de Md. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
`924 F.3d 684 (4th Cir. 2019) ........................... 3, 5, 32, 34
`284 F. Supp. 3d 758 (D. Md. 2018) ........................ 31, 32
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .......................................................... 8
`Chrysler Corp. v. Brown,
`441 U.S. 281 (1979) ........................................ 4, 22, 24, 28
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ........................................................ 34
`
`

`

`V
`
`
`Guardian Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Fed.
`Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.,
`589 F.2d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ....................................... 29
`Heckler v. Chaney,
`470 U.S. 821 (1985) ........................................................ 31
`Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB,
`535 U.S. 137 (2002) ........................................................ 15
`In re Aiken Cty.,
`725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................... 35
`Iowa League of Cities v. EPA,
`711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) ......................................... 29
`Kendall v. United States,
`37 U.S. 524 (1838) ............................................................ 9
`Lincoln v. Vigil,
`508 U.S. 182 (1993) ........................................................ 31
`McLouth Steel Prods. Corp. v. Thomas,
`838 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ..................................... 30
`Medellin v. Texas,
`552 U.S. 491 (2008) ........................................................ 18
`Morgan Stanley Capital Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util.
`Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty.,
`554 U.S. 527 (2008) ........................................................ 34
`Morton v. Ruiz,
`415 U.S. 199 (1974) ............................................... passim
`Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm
`Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .............................................. 32, 33, 34
`NAACP v. Trump,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 209 (D.D.C. 2018) .............................. 34
`
`

`

`VI
`
`
`Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. McCarthy,
`758 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................... 22, 23, 24
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,
`643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ....................................... 25
`Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n,
`135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) .............................................. 22, 29
`Phillips Petro. Co. v. Johnson,
`22 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) ........................................... 29
`Prof’ls & Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala,
`56 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1995) ........................................... 28
`Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec.,
`908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................ passim
`Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm.,
`525 U.S. 471 (1999) .................................................. 10, 31
`Shalala v. Guernsey Mem’l Hosp.,
`514 U.S. 87 (1995) .................................................... 23, 25
`Texas v. United States (Texas I),
`136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) ..................................................... 1
`809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................ passim
`86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015) ............................ 20
`Texas v. United States (Texas II),
`328 F. Supp. 3d 662 (S.D. Tex. 2018) ................. passim
`United States v. Mead Corp.,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) .......................................................... 8
`Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,
`573 U.S. 302 (2014) .................................................. 21, 23
`Weyerhaeuser Co. v U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
`139 S. Ct. 361 (2018) ................................................ 30, 31
`
`

`

`VII
`
`
`Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Rules:
`U.S. Const.:
`art. I, § 8, cl. 4 ................................................................... 9
`art. II, § 3 ................................................................ 6, 9, 35
`8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(2)-(4) ...................................................... 13
`42 U.S.C.:
`§ 402(a)-(h) ...................................................................... 18
`§ 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) .......................................................... 18
`§ 414(a) ............................................................................ 18
`Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.:
`§ 551(4) ............................................................................ 21
`§ 553(b) ............................................................................ 22
`§ 553(d)(2) ....................................................................... 28
`§ 701(a)(1) ....................................................................... 31
`§ 701(a)(2) ....................................................................... 31
`Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998,
`Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. A, § 101(h), tit. IX,
`112 Stat. 2681-538 .......................................................... 16
`Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649,
`104 Stat. 4978 ................................................................. 16
`Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.:
`§ 1101(a)(15)(A)-(V) ....................................................... 10
`§ 1101(a)(15)(H) ............................................................. 15
`§ 1101(a)(15)(P) .............................................................. 15
`§ 1101(a)(20) ................................................................... 10
`§ 1105a(a) ........................................................................ 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`VIII
`VIII
`
`§ 1151 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1151 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1153 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1153 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) ..................................................... 17
`§ 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) ..................................................... 17
`§ 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(IV) .................................................... 17
`§ 1154(a)(1)(D)(i)(IV) .................................................... 17
`§ 1154(a)(1)(K) ............................................................... 17
`§ 1154(a)(1)(K) ............................................................... 17
`§ 1157 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1157 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1158 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1158 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1158(c)(1)(B) ................................................................ 15
`§ 1158(c)(1)(B) ................................................................ 15
`§ 1158(d)(2) ..................................................................... 16
`§ 1158(d)(2) ..................................................................... 16
`§ 1159 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1159 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1160(d)(3)(A) ................................................................ 16
`§ 1160(d)(3)(A) ................................................................ 16
`§ 1181 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1181 ............................................................................... 10
`§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) ............................................................ 11
`§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) ............................................................ 11
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B) ................................................................ 12
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B) ................................................................ 12
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) ............................................................ 11
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(i) ............................................................ 11
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) ..................................................... 10, 12
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) ..................................................... 10, 12
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(iv) .......................................................... 15
`§ 1182(a)(9)(B)(iv) .......................................................... 15
`§ 1182(d)(5)(A) .................................................... 10, 12, 19
`§1182(d)(5)(A) .................................................... 10, 12, 19
`§ 1182(d)(5)(A) (1952) .................................................... 19
`§ 1182(d)(5)(A) (1952) .................................................... 19
`§ 1184(p)(6) ..................................................................... 16
`§ 1184(p)(6) ..................................................................... 16
`§ 1227(a)(1)(B) ................................................................ 11
`§ 1227(a)(1)(B) ................................................................ 11
`§ 1227(d)(1)-(2) ............................................................... 16
`§ 1227(d)(1)—(2) ............................................................... 16
`§ 1229b ............................................................................. 10
`§ 1229b ............................................................................. 10
`§ 1229c(a)(2)(A) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1229c(a)(2)(A) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1231(b)(3) ..................................................................... 10
`§ 1231(b)(3) ..................................................................... 10
`§ 1252(b) (1988) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1252(b) (1988) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1252(g) .......................................................................... 32
`§ 1252(g) .......................................................................... 32
`§ 1254(e) (1988) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1254(e) (1988) .............................................................. 19
`§ 1254a(a)(1)(B) .............................................................. 16
`§ 1254a(a)(1)(B) .............................................................. 16
`§ 1255(a) .......................................................................... 12
`§ 1255(a) .......................................................................... 12
`§ 1255(c)(2) ...................................................................... 15
`§ 1255(c)(2) ...................................................................... 15
`§ 1255a(b)(3) ................................................................... 16
`§ 1255a(b)(3) ................................................................... 16
`§ 1255a(e)(1)-(2) ............................................................. 16
`§ 1255a(e)(1)—(2) ............................................................. 16
`
`

`

`IX
`
`
`
`§ 1255a note .................................................................... 16
`§ 1324a(a) ........................................................................ 15
`§ 1324a(f) ......................................................................... 15
`§ 1324a(h)(3) ................................................................... 20
`§ 1324a(h)(3)(B) .............................................................. 15
`Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
`Pub. L. No. 99-603, 101 Stat. 3359 ..................... passim
`Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.:
`§ 32(c)(1)(E) .................................................................... 18
`§ 32(m) ............................................................................. 18
`National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
`Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136,
`117 Stat. 1392 ................................................................. 17
`Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
`Relief Act, Pub. L. No. 105-100, tit. II,
`111 Stat. 2160, 2193 (1997) ........................................... 16
`REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, div. B
`119 Stat. 231, 302 ........................................................... 14
`USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115
`Stat. 272 ..................................................................... 16-17
`8 C.F.R.:
`§ 1.3(a)(4)(vi) ................................................................... 14
`§ 274a.12(a) ..................................................................... 20
`§ 274a.12(c)(9)-(10) ........................................................ 20
`§ 274a.12(c)(14) ........................................................ 17, 20
`§ 274a.12(c)(16) .............................................................. 20
`20 C.F.R. § 422.104(a)(2) ..................................................... 18
`45 C.F.R. § 152.2(4)(vi) ........................................................ 14
`Tex. Lab. Code § 207.043(a)(3) .......................................... 14
`Tex. Transp. Code § 521.142(a) .......................................... 14
`
`

`

`X
`
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37 ......................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities:
`3d Am. Compl., Vidal v. Nielsen,
`No. 1:16-cv-4756 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2017),
`ECF No. 113 .................................................................. 27
`52 Fed. Reg. 46,092 (Dec. 4, 1987) ..................................... 20
`Br. for State Respondents, United States v.
`Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (No. 15-674),
`2016 WL 1213267 ....................................................... 7, 21
`Br. for the States of Texas et al., Brewer v. Ariz.
`Dream Act Coal., No. 16-1180, 2017 WL
`1629324 (U.S. May 1, 2017) ............................................ 7
`Complaint, Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t
`of Homeland Sec., No. 3:17-cv-5211-WHA
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2017), ECF No. 1 .......................... 26
`Complaint, California v. U.S. Dep’t of
`Homeland Sec., No. 3:17-cv-5235 (N.D.
`Cal. Sept. 11, 2017), ECF No. 1 ................................... 26
`Complaint, Garcia v. United States, No.
`3:17-cv-5380 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017),
`ECF No. 1 ...................................................................... 26
`Complaint, NAACP v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-
`1907 (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2017), ECF No. 1 ................... 27
`Complaint, New York v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-
`5228 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2017), ECF No. 1 ................. 27
`Complaint, Trs. of Princeton Univ. v. United
`States, No. 1:17-cv-2325 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2017),
`ECF No. 1 ...................................................................... 22
`
`

`

`XI
`
`
`David Hancock, Few Immigrants Use Family
`Aid Program, MIAMI HERALD, Oct. 1, 1990 .............. 19
`Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
`Toolkit, Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp.
`3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (No. 1:14-cv-254),
`ECF No. 38-6 ................................................................. 12
`H.R. Rep. No. 99-682(I) (1986),
`reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649 .................... 17, 20
`H.R. Rep. No. 104-725 (1996) (Conf. Rep.),
`reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2649 .......................... 14
`Josh Blackman, The Constitutionality of DAPA Part
`I: Congressional Acquiescence to Deferred Action,
`103 GEO. L.J. ONLINE 96 (2015) .................................. 21
`Letter from León Rodríguez, Dir., USCIS,
`to Sen. Grassley (June 29, 2016) .................................. 12
`Letter from León Rodríguez, Dir., USCIS,
`to Sen. Grassley (Oct. 9, 2014) ..................................... 12
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction, App. 12, Texas v.
`United States (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2018) (1:14-cv-
`68), ECF No. 6, Exh. 3 .................................................. 13
`Pet. Br., United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271
`(2016) (No. 15-674), 2016 WL 836758 .......................... 11
`Pls.’ Stip. of Voluntary Dismissal, Texas v. United
`States, No. 1:14-cv-254 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2017),
`ECF No. 473 .................................................................... 2
`Principal and Response Brief of Appellees the Regents
`of the University of California, Janet Napolitano,
`and City San Jose, Regents, 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir.
`2018) (No. 18-15068), 2018 WL 1414352 ..................... 18
`
`
`
`

`

`XII
`
`
`U.S. Br. as Amicus Curiae in Opp. to Reh’g En Banc,
`Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053
`(9th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-16248) ........................................ 9
`U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DACA Nat’l
`Standard Operating Procedures (2013) ..................... 13
`USCIS, Frequently Asked Questions,
`https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration
`-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-
`process/frequently-asked-questions ....................... 9, 26
`USCIS, How Do I Change to Another
`Nonimmigrant Status? (Jan. 2016),
`https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/
`Resources/C2en.pdf ...................................................... 15
`Zachary Price, Enforcement Discretion and Executive
`Duty, 67 VAND. L. REV. 671 (2014) ............................... 9
`
`

`

`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`Amici curiae are the States of Texas, Alabama,
`Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana,
`Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Vir-
`ginia, and Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi.1
`The present lawsuits have forced the Executive to
`retain an unlawful “deferred action” program known as
`DACA. The administration is correct that DACA is un-
`lawful: DACA operates contrary to substantive immigra-
`tion law by affirmatively conferring “lawful presence”
`status and work-authorization eligibility on over 1.7 mil-
`lion unlawfully present aliens. DACA is thus materially
`identical to two programs (Expanded DACA and DAPA,
`see infra n.5) that were invalidated by the Fifth Circuit
`in a ruling affirmed by an equally divided vote of this
`Court. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 172, 184-
`86 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136
`S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam) (Texas I).
`DACA, like the programs held unlawful in Texas I,
`inflicts ongoing irreparable harm on the States. For ex-
`ample, amici “bear the costs of providing . . . social ser-
`vices required by federal law,” including healthcare, ed-
`ucation, and law-enforcement. Texas v. United States,
`328 F. Supp. 3d 662, 700 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (Texas II).
`“[B]ecause DACA increases the total number of aliens in
`
`1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici state that no
`counsel for any party authored this brief, in whole or in part,
`and no person or entity other than amici contributed monetar-
`ily to its preparation or submission. The parties consent to the
`filing of this brief.
`
`
`(1)
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`
`the States by disincentivizing those already present from
`leaving, the States must provide more . . . social services,
`which cost more.” Id. According to an expert retained by
`DACA’s defenders in Texas II, Texas alone “incurs more
`than $250,000,000 in total direct costs from DACA recip-
`ients per year.” Id. at 700-01.
`To seek redress for these injuries, a group of States,
`led by Texas, notified the federal government that it
`would challenge DACA on the same bases that suc-
`ceeded as to DAPA and Expanded DACA unless the fed-
`eral government rescinded DACA. AR 238-40.2 In re-
`sponse, the Executive issued the September 2017 memo-
`randum at issue here announcing DACA’s rescission.
`Based on the memorandum, Texas and the other States
`agreed to dismiss their pending lawsuit. Pls.’ Stip. of Vol-
`untary Dismissal at 1, Texas v. United States, No. 1:14-
`cv-254 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2017), ECF No. 473. But DACA
`was not wound down. DACA’s rescission was enjoined,
`and the Texas-led coalition ultimately filed suit seeking a
`declaration that DACA was unlawful. Texas II, 328 F.
`Supp. 3d 662.
`This case thus directly implicates the States’ effort
`to bring about an orderly end to DACA and threatens to
`continue the numerous harms inflicted on the States by
`this lawless program.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`I. The courts below erred by concluding that
`DACA was lawful. The Executive decided to wind down
`
`2 AR cites the Administrative Record, filed as Notice of Filing
`Administrative Record, Regents of the University of Califor-
`nia v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No.
`3:17-cv-5211-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2017), ECF No. 64-1.
`
`

`

`3
`
`
`DACA after a new administration concluded that DACA
`was unlawful for the reasons affirmed by the Court in
`Texas I, or at least that DACA would likely be held
`unlawful, creating significant litigation risk
`if the
`program continued. Pet. App. 114a-18a.3
`Respondents in these consolidated cases argue that
`rescinding DACA was arbitrary and capricious because
`the Executive’s conclusion that DACA was unlawful was
`incorrect or insufficiently explained. The courts below
`and the Fourth Circuit have agreed. E.g., Regents of the
`Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d
`476, 494-504 (9th Cir. 2018) (Regents); CASA de Md. v.
`U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 924 F.3d 684, 697-701 (4th
`Cir. 2019).4 As the multistate coalition litigating Texas II
`has demonstrated, the Executive was correct for several
`reasons. Amici will focus on two that demonstrate the
`fundamental misunderstandings of law underlying the
`decisions under review.
`A. DACA is substantively unlawful because it
`exceeds the scope of authority delegated to the
`Executive by the INA. As the Court has repeatedly
`recognized, the power to establish when aliens are law-
`fully present is “entrusted exclusively to Congress,”
`which has enacted “extensive and complex” statutes gov-
`erning (among other things) lawful presence. Arizona v.
`United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395, 409 (2012) (quotation
`
`3 Pet. App. cites the Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Cer-
`tiorari Before Judgment in United States Department of
`Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California,
`No. 18-587 (S. Ct. filed Nov. 5, 2018).
`4 Although CASA de Maryland has not been consolidated with
`this case, it presents the same threshold legal issues.
`
`

`

`4
`
`
`marks omitted). Congress delegated limited rule-making
`authority to the Executive, which DACA exceeds.
`Congress has never given the Executive carte
`blanche to grant lawful presence to any alien it chooses
`not to remove,
`let alone benefits
`including work
`authorization, health care, unemployment, and a
`pathway to citizenship. To the contrary, Congress en-
`acted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)
`in 1986 “as a comprehensive framework for combating
`the employment of illegal aliens.” Id. at 404 (quotation
`marks omitted). Congress has defined numerous catego-
`ries of aliens entitled to or eligible for work authoriza-
`tion. Entirely absent are the aliens covered by DACA.
`DACA contradicts those mandates and would render
`Congress’s detailed provisions surplusage.
`B. Even if the Court were to conclude that DACA is
`substantively lawful, DACA is procedurally invalid be-
`cause it seeks to change this nation’s immigration law
`without following the APA’s notice-and-comment proce-
`dure. For forty years, this Court has held that any “sub-
`stantive” agency rule that “affect[s] individual rights and
`obligations” must go through the notice-and-comment
`procedures established by the APA. Chrysler Corp. v.
`Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 (1979). DACA falls within this
`category of “substantive” rules because it sets criteria by
`which more than a million unlawfully present aliens may
`seek access to numerous benefits. Morton v. Ruiz, 415
`U.S. 199, 231 (1974). Moreover, DACA imposes extensive
`obligations on States to provide social services to an
`entire class of people. Assuming such changes could be
`adopted without congressional action, they could not be
`adopted without APA notice and comment.
`
`

`

`
`
`5
`
`Plaintiffs cannot avoid this commonsense conclusion
`by asserting that DACA is merely a “general policy
`statement,” which leaves signficant discretion to the
`Executive. As the Fifth Circuit noted in Texas I, DACA
`and its Operating Procedures “contain nearly 150 pages
`of specific instructions for granting or denying deferred
`action.” 809 F.3d at 173 (alterations omitted). Such a
`system affords line-level employees at the Department
`of Homeland Security (DHS) little practical discretion,
`belying the notion that DACA is a “general policy
`statement” without binding effect.
`II. Three circuit courts have now examined the
`sweeping changes to American immigration law effected
`by the creation of DACA (or the closely related
`Expanded DACA and DAPA programs5), and two of
`them have considered DACA’s rescission. Texas I, 809
`F.3d at 163-70; Regents, 908 F.3d at 494-504; CASA de
`Md., 924 F.3d at 697-701. These courts agree that these
`Executive actions were rules subject to judicial review.
`This conclusion follows the text of the Immigration and
`Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure
`Act (APA), and this Court’s precedent.
`III. Because DACA exceeded DHS’s authority
`under the INA and was promulgated without notice and
`comment, it was never a valid legislative rule. It cannot
`
`5 DHS announced DACA in 2012 to grant lawful presence to
`aliens who arrived in this country as children. In 2014, DHS
`expanded DACA to cover additional aliens and lengthen the
`lawful-presence period for aliens awarded relief. At the same
`time, DHS created the DAPA program to provide lawful pres-
`ence for unlawfully present aliens with children who were ei-
`ther U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. See Texas I,
`809 F.3d at 147-49.
`
`

`

`6
`
`
`be arbitrary or capricious for the Executive to rescind a
`program that was both substantively and procedurally
`unlawful. Indeed, such a rule is incompatible with our
`constitutional system, which imposes on the President an
`obligation “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S.
`Const. art. II, § 3.
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. DACA Is Unlawful.
`DACA effected one of the largest shifts in immigra-
`tion policy in American history, granting “lawful pres-
`ence” to hundreds of thousands of unlawfully present al-
`iens. That policy shift occurred without public input be-
`cause the Executive bypassed APA notice-and-comment
`procedures. And it violated substantive immigration
`laws duly enacted by Congress.
`On June 29, 2017, an 11-state coalition, led by Texas,
`sent a letter to the federal government proposing a
`DACA wind-down to end the Texas I litigation challeng-
`ing the Executive’s ability to unilaterally confer lawful
`presence and work authorization. AR 238-40. At that
`time, Texas I challenged only DAPA and Expanded
`DACA, but the coalition informed the Attorney General
`that it would expand the case if DACA were not wound
`down. AR 239-40. This letter explained how the legal ar-
`guments that the Fifth Circuit, and ultimately this
`Court, sustained against DAPA applied equally to
`DACA. AR 238-39.6
`
`6 Also available to the Attorney General was an amicus brief
`filed before this Court, Br. for the States of Texas et al.,
`Brewer v. Ariz. Dream Act Coal., No. 16-1180, 2017 WL
`1629324 (U.S. May 1, 2017), which explained that DACA was
`unlawful for the same substantive and procedural infirmities
`
`

`

`
`
`7
`
`The letter persuaded DHS that DACA is unlawful.
`DHS effectively acceded to Texas’s request “after con-
`sulting with the Attorney General, and considering the
`likelihood of success on the merits of the ongoing litiga-
`tion.” AR 254. On September 5, 2017, Acting DHS Sec-
`retary Elaine C. Duke issued a memorandum stating
`that the “DACA program should be terminated” in light
`of the “rulings in the ongoing litigation.” AR 255. In par-
`ticular, Secretary Duke invoked the Fifth Circuit’s deci-
`sion in Texas I, which concluded that DAPA “conflicted
`with the discretion authorized by Congress” because the
`INA “‘flatly does not permit the reclassification of mil-
`lions of illegal aliens as lawfully present,’” and that “im-
`plementation of the program did not comply with the
`[APA] because the Department did not implement it
`through notice-and-comment rulemaking.” AR 253-54
`(quoting Texas I, 809 F.3d at 184). Secretary Kristjen M.
`Nielsen issued a separate memorandum on June 22, 2018
`further explaining the