Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Chad F. Wolf,* in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants.

State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.

City of San Jose, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in his official capacity; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.

Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants.

County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; William P. Barr, Attorney General; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants.

Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, In her official capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants.

Regents of the University of California; Janet Napolitano, in her official capacity as President of the University of California; State of California; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of Maryland; City of San Jose; Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; Norma Ramirez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees.

Dulce Garcia; Miriam Gonzalez Avila; Saul Jimenez Suarez; Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza; Norma Ramirez; Jirayut Latthivongskorn; County of Santa Clara; Service Employees International Union Local 521, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America; Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15068, No. 18-15069, No. 18-15070, No. 18-15071, No. 18-15072, No. 18-15128, No. 18-15133, No. 18-15134

Decided: August 04, 2020

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 207 L.Ed.2d 353 (2020), we remand these cases to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion, which held that the Department of Homeland Security's rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program “was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the [Administrative Procedure Act],” id. at 1915.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (2020)

Docket No: No. 18-15068, No. 18-15069, No. 18-15070, No. 18-15071, No. 18-15072, No. 18-15128, No. 18-15133, No. 18-15134

Decided: August 04, 2020

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard