US Supreme Court rules DACA rescission was unlawful [pdf]
Setting aside for a moment whether DACA is &#x27;good&#x27; or not, this seems like a bit of a strange decision to me. If rescinding DACA via memorandum was unlawful as a violation of the APA, why was implementing it by memorandum lawful?<p>I haven&#x27;t yet read the entire majority opinion, and maybe it will change my mind, but right now I tend to agree with Thomas:<p>&gt; Perhaps even more unfortunately, the majority’s holding creates  perverse  incentives,  particularly  for  outgoing  administrations. Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by   unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through   Executive Branch agency memoranda. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court.  In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required,  to  continue  administering  unlawful  programs that it inherited from a previous administration.  I respect-fully dissent in part.