DACA Rescission: Ending Protection for 800,000 Childhood Arrivals
DACA recipients — sometimes called Dreamers — had arrived in the United States as children, had lived here for years or decades, had submitted to background checks, and had registered with the government in reliance on the Obama administration's promise of temporary protection. Sessions announced the rescission by describing immigrants in terms that critics said echoed nativist rhetoric. The administration's stated legal basis was that DACA was an unconstitutional executive overreach; the Supreme Court did not reach this question, instead finding the rescission procedurally defective — the DHS Secretary had failed to adequately explain the agency's reasoning as required by the APA.
Record summary
Grade
Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern
Systematic actions that undermine fundamental constitutional or international legal protections at the structural level. Scale and definitions
- Status
- Concluded
- Incident date
- Record updated
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Category
- Civil Rights
- Legal posture
- Judicial finding
- War-crime classification
- Enabling conduct
- Verification
- Independently verified
- ICC relevance
- No
- Sources
- 4 cited
- Stable ID
trump-children-daca-rescission-2017- Victims
- Approximately 800,000 DACA recipients who had built lives, careers, and families in the United States in reliance on the program; citizen family members who would face family separation through deportation
- Alleged responsible parties
- Donald Trump, President; directed rescission of DACA over objections from many Republican business and congressional leaders— White House
- Jeff Sessions, Attorney General; announced the rescission; characterized DACA as unlawful amnesty— U.S. Department of Justice
Key points
- DACA recipients had arrived in the U.S. before age 16, had resided continuously since June 15, 2007, had passed background checks, and had registered with DHS — meaning the government had their information because they had trusted the program's protections; rescission would have exposed approximately 800,000 people who had self-identified to the government
- Attorney General Sessions's announcement characterized DACA as 'an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch' and as having 'denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans' — immigration economists disputed both characterizations
- Multiple federal courts issued injunctions blocking the rescission, finding it was likely arbitrary and capricious; the DHS Secretary had issued a one-page memo rescinding DACA without engaging with the substance of the program's benefits or the reliance interests of 800,000 people
- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (June 18, 2020) that the rescission was 'arbitrary and capricious' under the APA — the agency had failed to consider the reliance interests of program beneficiaries and had not offered an adequate explanation for the policy change
- Congress passed the Dream Act or similar legislation in the House multiple times; it never passed the Senate due to filibuster; during the six-month deadline Trump set, Congress failed to act despite bipartisan support in principle
- Many DACA recipients are professionals in healthcare, education, and other fields critical to the U.S. economy; a 2019 survey found 28% of DACA recipients worked in education, health, or social services; the American Medical Association supported continuing DACA
Overview
DACA recipients had done everything the government asked. They had come forward, registered, passed background checks, renewed their status. They had trusted the program's promises and built lives — careers, marriages, children — in reliance on that trust.
The rescission announcement invited them to arrange their affairs before their protection expired.
What DACA Was
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program granted two-year renewable deferrals from deportation to people who had arrived in the United States before age 16, had resided continuously since 2007, and had passed criminal background checks. It did not create legal status. It was a prosecutorial discretion policy — the government declining to deport a specific category of people.
The recipients were, by definition, people who had grown up in the United States. Many had no memory of their countries of birth.
The Reliance Problem
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision didn't reach the question of whether DACA was constitutionally valid. It held that the rescission was procedurally defective: the agency had issued a one-page memo without engaging with the reliance interests of 800,000 people who had structured their lives around the program's promises.
This is what arbitrary and capricious means in administrative law: you cannot reverse a major policy decision affecting hundreds of thousands of people without even acknowledging that you're doing it.
The Politics
Congress was given six months to fix the problem through legislation. Bipartisan coalitions formed. Bills were introduced. The Dream Act had passed the House multiple times. None passed the Senate.
The six-month window expired. Courts kept the program alive through injunctions. The Supreme Court's ruling in June 2020 preserved it. The people who had registered themselves with the government remained in limbo.
International law engaged
| Instrument | Provision | What it protects or prohibits |
|---|---|---|
| International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Article 23 | Protection of the family — threatened deportation of people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood, often with citizen family members, raises Article 23 family separation concerns |
Update log
-
Updated with Supreme Court ruling.
Sequence of events
-
Obama creates DACA by executive action
President Obama creates DACA through a DHS memo, granting two-year renewable deferrals of deportation and work authorization to approximately 800,000 people who arrived as children.
-
Sessions announces DACA rescission with 6-month wind-down
AG Sessions announces the rescission of DACA, calling it unconstitutional. DHS Secretary Kelly issues a one-page memo. Trump gives Congress six months to pass legislation.
-
Congressional deadline passes without legislation
The six-month deadline passes. Congress has failed to pass DACA legislation despite bipartisan pressure. Courts keep the program running through injunctions.
-
Supreme Court rules rescission 'arbitrary and capricious'
The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that the DHS rescission violated the APA because the agency failed to consider the reliance interests of 800,000 DACA recipients. The program is preserved. Chief Justice Roberts writes the majority opinion.
Sources
- Trump Ends DACA and Calls on Congress to Act — The New York Times
- Trump administration moves to end DACA program — The Washington Post
- Trump ends DACA protections; Congress given 6 months to act — The Associated Press
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California — U.S. Supreme Court archived ✓