The Court also rejected, by an 8-1 vote, the claim that the DACA rescission violated the Equal Protection Clause, though there is no majority opinion on that point. The threshold decision by the majority holding that the DACA rescission is subject to judicial review is significant. So the Obama Administration argued its immigration policies (DACA and DAPA) were unreviewable (and also reversible at any time) and the Trump Administration argued that its decision to end DACA was likewise unreviewable. He writes:DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. Though I think the Court today got the legal question wrong, the Trump Administration made it easier for the Court than it should have—and that's something we've seen from this Administration quite a bit.
Related:THE HILL - Garland strikes down Trump-era immigration court rule, empowering judges to pause cases
The immigration court system, which is housed within the Department of Justice (DOJ), saw its backlog more than double under the Trump administration to 1.3 million as immigration officials forwarded a deluge of cases seeking deportation. Garland’s post gives him the power to review decisions made in the immigration court system, a power attorneys general used frequently under the Trump administration. The move followed pressure from immigration advocacy groups to review all of the 17 attorney general-level immigration court decisions made under the Trump administration. Greg Chen with the American Immigration Lawyers Association previously told The Hill that he estimates that some 460,000 people on the docket have applications for status pending with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services but are still being asked to make immigration court appearances roughly every three to six months.