Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Regents: Rescinding DACA Required Consideration of Forbearance and Reliance Interests

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 18, 2026

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California reviewed the explanation DHS gave when it ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy after receiving the Attorney General’s conclusion about legal defects in a related program.

The rescission was reviewable final agency action

The Court treated DACA’s administration as more than a bare refusal to enforce. The rescission ended an established program and was not committed entirely to agency discretion by law.

DHS treated distinct policy components as one

Even if associated benefits raised legal concerns, deferred-action forbearance could be considered separately. The rescission memorandum did not address whether forbearance should continue without the benefits component.

Reliance interests required genuine consideration

Recipients, families, employers, schools, and communities had arranged important affairs around DACA. The agency did not have to preserve the policy, but it had to assess those interests and consider accommodations before acting.

The Court required lawful reconsideration, not permanent DACA

The Court sustained the arbitrary-and-capricious challenge and remanded through mixed dispositions in the consolidated cases. It did not hold that DHS lacked authority to rescind DACA with an adequate explanation.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish deferred-action forbearance from associated benefits.
• Document concrete reliance interests with dates and supporting records.
• Identify the operative agency action and the reasons stated when it was taken.
• Check current DACA rules, injunctions, and agency guidance before advising on eligibility or renewal.