← All Authorities
United States Leading Case grounds irrationalitylegitimate expectation

Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California

591 U.S. 1 (2020)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Year2020
StatusBinding authority

Summary

DACA rescission held arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency failed adequately to consider reliance interests of affected parties.

Key Principle

DACA rescission was arbitrary and capricious under APA; failed to consider reliance interests

Area of Law

immigration

Related Cases

Minister for Immigration v NZYQ [2023] HCA 37

Executive detention of non-citizens is only lawful where removal is reasonably practicable; indefinite detention where removal is not possible is constitutionally invalid, effectively overruling Al-Kateb.

Minister for Immigration v Vunilagi [2023] HCA 24

HCA considered s 80 Constitution guarantee of trial by jury and the Kable principle as they apply to territory courts and territory criminal proceedings.

Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs (Character Cancellation) [2022] HCA 19

Ministerial discretion to cancel a visa on character grounds must be exercised according to statutory criteria and is subject to judicial review for legal error.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Department of Homeland Securit...