Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-587_5ifl.pdf

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/polit...urt/index.html

It seems like there's a lot of legal nuance here, with the decision really being several different decisions, with justices concurring or dissenting in different groups on different parts. One thing I've always been a little confused about is just what the core legal argument is, since one would naïvely assume that a program created by executive order could be ended by one.

From scrolling through some of the chat on SCOTUSBlog, my impression is that the decision is basically procedural. It's not arguing that Trump absolutely can't rescind DACA, but more or less that they did it incompetently -- "arbitrary and capricious, under the Administrative Procedures Act" is how SCOTUSBlog describes it.

So, basically they just send it back to DHS and they try again? I would love some opinions from the lawyers. I haven't had time yet to understand what aspects of the decision were found to be arbitrary and capricious. It seems like the first section of the ruling is pretty narrowly about deficiencies in the explanation offered by the administration for ending the program.

I haven't had time to read the opinion in its entirety, but based on the summary, your understanding is correct. The court rejected the Equal Protection argument but held that the agency decision was arbitrary and capricious. There were two key issues -- eliminating benefits eligibility and forbearance. The court held that the agency had an adequate basis for concluding DAPA violated the INA because it extended eligibility for benefits to a class of unauthorized aliens. But the agency failed to explain why it rejected the possibility of retaining forbearance while eliminating eligibility for benefits. And the court refused to consider post-hoc rationalizations for the agency action, which is pretty standard.

So this goes back to DHS. I suspect that the main benefit of the decision is that it will delay action against affected people until after the presidential election.

This is a pretty typical decision from Roberts. He isn't bothered by conservative policies. But he is concerned about process and norms. It is the same style of thinking that caused McCain to give a thumbs down to the skinny repeal of the ACA.

IANAL

As far as I can tell:

• All parties involved agree that DHS has the right to rescind DACA
• Majority holds that DHS did it improperly because they did not provide adequate reasoning when they rescinded it by memo and only added rationalization after the fact.
• Sotomayor concurs but dissents in part because she thinks Dreamers are also protected by the Equal Protection Clause.
• Thomas and co. dissent saying that's ****ing stupid, if it was created by a memo it can certainly be rescinded by memo. It is always lawful to rescind something that was unlawful.
• Kavanaugh wrote a bunch of **** rebutting the majority opinion point by point that I didn't read.

Doesn't this decision mean an executive order has that much more power?

This ruling is way narrower than the Title VII LGBTQ one.

The holding boils down to "You need a pretext before you rescind DACA. You can't make up a reason after the fact."

Everything else is unsettled.