Reading mode Exit reading mode

DACA Rescission: Ending Protections for 700,000 Dreamers

DACA recipients — called 'Dreamers' — are people who arrived in the United States as children, grew up here, attended American schools, and in many cases speak no other language. The rescission announcement gave recipients a six-month wind-down period and urged Congress to pass legislation. Congress failed to act; the Supreme Court blocked the rescission in June 2020, ruling the administration's process was procedurally defective. DACA remained in legal limbo through the remainder of the first term.

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-in-cages-policy-graphic
Victims
Approximately 700,000 DACA recipients facing deportation to countries they may not remember; their U.S.-citizen children, spouses, and family members; communities and employers who depended on their presence
Alleged responsible parties
  • Donald Trump, President of the United States— White House
  • Jeff Sessions, Attorney General; announced rescission— Department of Justice

Key points

  • DACA, established by Obama in 2012, gave 700,000 people who arrived as children a renewable two-year deferral from deportation and work authorization; recipients had to pass background checks, be enrolled in school or have graduated, and pay fees
  • Sessions announced the rescission on September 5, 2017, saying DACA was an unconstitutional overreach by Obama — despite the fact that both Obama and Trump used executive deferred action as a tool, and despite Trump himself using the same executive authority in other immigration contexts
  • The announcement gave recipients six months to wind down the program and explicitly urged Congress to pass legislation — which Congress failed to do despite multiple attempts
  • The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June 2020 in DHS v. Regents of the University of California that the rescission was 'arbitrary and capricious' under the Administrative Procedure Act, blocking it on procedural grounds — not ruling on whether DACA itself was constitutional
  • DACA recipients are uniquely vulnerable: they registered with the government and provided their addresses and personal information in exchange for protection; rescission would have used that government database to target people for deportation who had voluntarily identified themselves
  • Polls consistently showed 70-80% of Americans supported protecting DACA recipients; even many Republican members of Congress supported legislation; Trump's decision was driven by immigration hardliners including Stephen Miller

Overview

DACA recipients did not choose to come to the United States. They were brought as children, grew up here, attended American schools, learned to speak English, built lives, started families. Many speak only English. Many have never been back to the countries where they were born. Many have U.S.-citizen spouses and children.

In September 2017, the Trump administration announced it would deport them.

The Vulnerability of Registration

The cruelest dimension of the rescission announcement was its implication for the program's structure. DACA recipients had voluntarily registered with the federal government, provided their addresses and personal information, and submitted to background checks — in exchange for protection.

Rescission would have turned that database into a deportation target list. The people who had done everything right — who had registered, paid fees, passed background checks, stayed in school — would have been the most easily located by immigration enforcement.

Congress Fails to Act

The six-month wind-down period was presented as an opportunity for Congress to pass legislation protecting DACA recipients — something polls showed 70-80% of Americans supported. Congress failed. Multiple bipartisan deals were attempted; the most notable was killed after Trump reportedly used vulgar language to describe immigrants from Africa and Central America in a meeting with senators, describing their home countries as "shithole countries."

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling was not a vindication of DACA's constitutionality. It was a holding that the Trump administration had not followed proper administrative procedure in rescinding the program — had not provided adequate reasons for the change in policy, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ruling preserved DACA through the remainder of Trump's term. The underlying legal question of whether DACA can be rescinded through proper procedure was left open.

International law engaged

InstrumentProvisionWhat it protects or prohibits
Convention on the Rights of the ChildArticle 3Best interests of the child — deporting people who grew up in the United States and have no meaningful connection to their countries of birth is not in their best interests and violates the spirit of child protection norms
International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsArticle 17Protection against arbitrary interference with family — separating DACA recipients from their U.S.-based families and communities is arbitrary interference

Update log

  1. Updated with Supreme Court ruling blocking rescission.

Sequence of events

  1. Obama creates DACA

    Obama announces DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — giving approximately 800,000 young people who arrived as children a two-year renewable deferral from deportation and work authorization.

  2. Sessions announces rescission

    Sessions announces the rescission of DACA at a DOJ press conference, calling it an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. The announcement gives a six-month wind-down period and urges Congress to pass legislation.

  3. Trump rejects bipartisan deal

    A bipartisan group of senators presents Trump with a deal to protect DACA recipients in exchange for border security measures; Trump rejects it after reportedly making disparaging comments about immigrants from 'shithole countries.'

  4. Federal courts block rescission

    Multiple federal district courts issue injunctions blocking the DACA rescission, allowing renewals to continue pending the legal process. The Trump administration seeks Supreme Court review.

  5. Supreme Court blocks rescission

    The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in DHS v. Regents of the University of California that the rescission was 'arbitrary and capricious' under the APA — blocking it on procedural grounds but not ruling that DACA itself is constitutionally required.

  6. Administration resumes taking new DACA applications

    Following the Supreme Court ruling, the administration is required to accept new DACA applications for the first time since 2017 — though it immediately attempts new regulatory processes to end the program.

Sources

  1. Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act — The New York Times
  2. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California — Supreme Court Opinion — Supreme Court of the United States archived ✓
  3. Supreme Court rules against Trump's rescission of DACA — The Washington Post
  4. DACA Program Information — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

How this record was published

Manually curated This entry was added directly and does not carry an automated audit trail.

About our editorial methodology →

Related records

Similar by category, grade and tags.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    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.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    MS-13 'Animals' and Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Using Gang Labels to Target Immigrant Communities

    Trump's use of 'animals' to describe MS-13 members — and his conflation of the gang label with immigrants broadly — followed the same pattern documented in incitement to ethnic violence: dehumanization of a group, followed by calls for harsh treatment. Scholars of political violence noted the specific language echoed anti-Tutsi propaganda before the Rwandan genocide and Nazi propaganda before the Holocaust. Trump used similar dehumanizing framing for other immigrant groups, describing Central American migrants as an 'infestation' and an 'invasion.'

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Travel Ban: Muslim-Majority Country Restrictions Through Three Iterations

    The travel ban's anti-Muslim intent was documented in Trump's own public statements: before the first order, Trump had called for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States'; Rudy Giuliani publicly stated Trump had asked him how to create 'a Muslim ban' legally. The first order's implementation — without agency coordination, applying immediately to green card holders, causing chaos and hundreds of detentions at airports — forced a broad injunction within hours. Courts repeatedly found discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the third version, with Chief Justice Roberts's majority explicitly declining to assess whether the stated national security justification was pretextual.

  • Grade 2 of 5: Major Abuse of Power

    Shithole Countries: Documented Racist Immigration Comments in White House Meeting

    The meeting was called to discuss a bipartisan immigration framework. Present were Senators Durbin (D-IL), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ), Perdue (R-GA), Cotton (R-AR), and others, along with DHS Secretary Nielsen. Multiple attendees confirmed the substance of the comments. The 'shithole' characterization was directed at Haiti and African nations; Trump contrasted them with Norway, where he had met with the prime minister the previous day. Nielsen testified to Congress that she did not recall the exact words used. Perdue and Cotton initially said they didn't recall the comments then claimed Trump hadn't used those specific words — a position contradicted by Durbin's direct confirmation and Graham's reported in-room response.