This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Fifth Circuit previously held that DAPA and the expansion of DACA were likely unlawful, and the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment in an equally divided decision.
The Department of Homeland Security argues that it no longer wishes to retain the DACA policy because it believes the policy is illegal, has serious doubts about its legality, and opposes broad non‑enforcement policies.
Private respondents contend that the government's termination of DACA caused abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of about 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities, and the Armed Forces.
According to Private Respondents, the Attorney General asserted that he had no discretion because DACA was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the case centers on whether the termination of DACA is a discretionary agency action subject to judicial review, or whether the program was illegal and thus not subject to agency discretion.
Justices raised questions about the reviewability of the agency’s action and the limiting principles that govern such review.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justices also inquired about the number of individuals affected and the categories involved, noting estimates of roughly 11 million people.
What each side argues
Department of Homeland Security (Petitioner)
According to Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wishes to retain the DACA policy because it believes the policy is illegal, has serious doubts about its legality, and opposes broad non‑enforcement policies.
Private Respondents (Including Regents of the University of California, NAACP, etc.)
According to Private Respondents, the termination of DACA triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities, and the Armed Forces.
According to Private Respondents, the Attorney General asserted that he had no discretion because DACA was an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority.
General Francisco (Respondent Representative)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The case was heard before the Supreme Court at 10:06 a.m. on the day of argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case also raises important questions about the scope of agency discretion and the standards for judicial review of agency actions.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 99a7619017feb15abca0-r1-6462e834951c2781.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.