Department Of Homeland Security v. Regents Of The University Of California: The Supreme Court’s Disinterest in Reliance Interests

Rachael E. Savage

In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court addressed DHS’s attempt to rescind the DACA immigration program. The Court held that DHS’s rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The Court correctly relied on faults in DHS’s reasoning to render the program’s rescission invalid, but the Court failed to meaningfully address the many reliance interests at stake in the case.

Weighing reliance interests is an important and necessary process courts must undertake to determine whether agency action is arbitrary or capricious. Considering the impact of agency action on those who rely on prior agency policy is well-settled precedent, especially when those impacts are pecuniary or affect regulated industries. Reliance interests must be considered not just when industries rely to their detriment, but also when individuals rely to their detriment. This consideration is especially important when those individuals’ interests also implicate pecuniary interests.29 In neglecting to weigh the reliance interests at stake in DACA’s rescission, the Court, contrary to its own long-established precedent, “failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”