The Supreme Court's opinion overturning the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), DHS v. Regents of Univ. of California, 591 U.S. xx (June 18, 2020), is a victory for all DACA recipients. And it happened because the majority of the Supreme Court could see them: the 700,000 human beings temporarily protected by DACA, their 200,000 U.S. citizen children, the other members of their families, their neighbors, their employers, their schools, and the nation's land-of-immigrants mythology. In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chose not to see the individual lives turned upside down, the loss to the U.S. economy, the damage to the fabric of neighborhoods, regions, and to the nation as a whole.

According to SCOTUS, it was the administration's failure to pause and weigh the ensuing hardships that made the rescission of DACA unlawful. In legal terms, DHS's failure even to consider the "reliance interests" of DACA recipients rendered the rescission "arbitrary and capricious." DHS had the authority to discount the reliance of DACA recipients on the program, but DHS at least had to look at them and the pain and harm that would result from ending DACA.

As I pointed out earlier in the year, the Supreme Court has been known to disregard the flesh and blood human beings affected by the immigration cases before it. For example, four months ago SCOTUS reached out and interfered with normal court processes here in New York by overturning a preliminary injunction issued by SDNY Judge George Daniels against implementation of the new DHS "public charge" regulation, New York v DHS, 408 F. Supp. 3d 334 (SDNY 2019). The regulation dramatically changed the definition of "public charge" (e.g., receiving three non-cash social service benefits in one month—such as subsidized housing and health care—counted as three of the allowable 12 months of benefits), and the litigation had just begun.

Viewing the challenge as likely to prevail on the merits, Judge Daniels ordered provisional relief. The Supreme Court swooped down, even before the already scheduled Second Circuit argument could take place, and stayed the order in a 5-4 one paragraph ruling that gave no rationale for its decision. DHS v. City and State of New York, 589 U.S. xx (Jan. 27, 2020). The Solicitor General's application for the stay emphasized bloodless procedural issues: the plaintiffs lacked a "cognizable injury within the relevant zone of interests;" multiple courts had issued conflicting results; and the executive branch has discretion to interpret and apply immigration statutes.

The Supreme Court did not see the 8.3 million children currently enrolled in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) whose parents may forego these vital benefits (see Leah Zallman, et al., Implications of Changing Public Charge Immigration Rules for Children Who Need Medical Care, J. Amer. Med. Assoc. Pediatr. (2019)), or the one in seven adults in immigrant families who may go without other public benefits for which they are eligible (see Hamutal Bernstein, et al., One in Seven Adults in Immigrant Families Reported Avoiding Public Benefit Programs in 2018, Urban Institute Brief (May 2019)).

Similarly, the DACA recipients and their families and employers are invisible to the dissenters in today's case. The dissenters argue DACA was unlawful from the beginning and that reliance on DACA is irrelevant. They argue that rescinding DACA is a political decision that the federal courts should not review. They argue that federal district judges should not issue nationwide injunctions. There is nothing about the impact on the lives of real human beings.

This week, the Supreme Court majority insisted that the fundamental values of administrative law require "agency accountability" and reasoned decisions that allow "the parties and the public [to] respond fully and in a timely manner to an agency's exercise of authority." (slip op. at 16). "[T]the government should turn square corners in dealing with the people." (slip op. at 17). This week the Court remembered that "the people" are more than an abstract notion; they are living, breathing human beings. Dealing with people requires recognizing their humanity.

The Court returns the case to DHS with instructions to look in the eye of DACA recipients, their families, friends, neighbors, and employers, and expressly address and balance the disruption that rescinding DACA would inflict on all these lives. DHS has the authority to rescind the program put in place by the prior administration, but it must confront the human consequences of its action. DHS is made up of real people working real jobs, and it now up to them to decide if they will see DACA recipients as fellow flesh-and-blood humans.

Maryellen Fullerton is Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. She is an expert on asylum and refugee law.