`_______________
`
`No. 18-587
`
`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
`_______________
`
`No. 18-588
`
`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 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`_______________
`
`No. 18-589
`
`KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF
`HOMELAND 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
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`2
`RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXPANDED ARGUMENT
`_______________
`Pursuant to Rules 21.4 and 28.4 of the Rules of this Court,
`
`the Solicitor General, on behalf of petitioners, respectfully
`submits this response to the State of Texas’s motion for expanded
`argument in this case. This dispute concerns the policy of
`immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for
`Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In September 2017, the Department of
`Homeland Security (DHS) instituted an orderly wind-down of the
`DACA policy. The questions presented are (1) whether DHS’s
`decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and
`(2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
`The government argues that the decision is not judicially
`reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et
`seq., and that DHS’s decision is lawful in any event. Texas has
`filed an amicus brief arguing that DHS’s decision is judicially
`reviewable, but agreeing with the government that the decision is
`lawful. Texas now moves the Court to expand the oral argument to
`allow Texas ten minutes of argument time.
`
`Because Texas supports respondents on one question presented
`(reviewability) and supports petitioners on the other question
`(lawfulness of the rescission), the government opposes any change
`in the allotted argument time that would result either in a
`reduction in the government’s allotted 30 minutes of argument time
`or in the government’s receiving less time than respondents. The
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`government does not understand Texas to be making any such request,
`but to be asking only that ten additional minutes be added to the
`argument to enable its participation. Accordingly, as stated in
`Texas’s motion, the government neither consents to nor opposes
`that request.
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`SEPTEMBER 2019
`
`NOEL J. FRANCISCO
` Solicitor General
`
`
`
`