True but doesn’t this dismiss the argument that DACA itself is unlawful?
> Today the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case.
> DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.
If they gave everyone say an extra year to get one more renewal in, and allowed even more time for specific cases (people serving a tour of duty in the military, or people who are in college, or people going through medical treatment), would that be sufficient?
The majority opinion suggests it would be sufficient (pages numbered 25-26). After all, a program created by the administrative branch can be ended by the administrative branch.
Additionally I'm not sure if "DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion" is as open ended as all Thomas seems to imply. Certainly that discretion itself has to be legal. ex. They couldn't just decide to deport people who don't donate to a political candidate. It has to follow some legal process.
IMO it is a failure of the Legislative branch to deal with this.