This post instances "reliance interest," one of the criteria I've cited upthread that the Supreme Court will weigh when it decides whether or not to overturn the ACA.
In United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2020), the DACA opinion handed down earlier this month, C.J. Roberts obliquely expressed the relevance of reliance interest to the young-adult immigrants currently covered by DACA.
Referring to an argument submitted by an amicus, Roberts noted that the young-adult immigrants had enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children."
This consequential constellation of major life decisions leaves no doubt of the immigrants' reliance on DACA, a reliance well understood by Roberts as evidenced by his reference below to "the hardship to DACA recipients."
We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.
Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.
That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.