United States arbitrary and capricious reviewreliance interestsdeferred action

Dept of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California

591 US 1 (2020)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

Year2020

StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

The rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency failed to consider important aspects of the problem, including the reliance interests of DACA recipients.

Area of Law

public-law

Related Cases

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo 603 U.S. ___ (2024)

SEC v Jarkesy No. 22-859 (2024)

Corner Post Inc v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 144 S. Ct. 2440 (2024)

Ask CommonBench about this case

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

Explain Dept of Homeland Security v Re...