I don't think the court has ruled that the implementation of DACA was not "arbitrary and capricious" and had sufficient justification under the APA. (could easi

I don't think the court has ruled that the implementation of DACA was not "arbitrary and capricious" and had sufficient justification under the APA. (could easily be wrong here though). The sections you quoted are from the section in which the Court is deciding whether the APA applies to the rescission of DACA. This is the introduction to that section: > But before determining whether the rescission was arbi-trary and capricious, we must first address the Govern-ment’s contentions that DHS’s decision is unreviewable under the APA and outside this Court’s jurisdiction and this is the conclusion: > Because the DACA program is more than a non-enforce-ment policy, its rescission is subject to review under the APA The argument there is not that the implementation is legit, it's that the APA applies to DACA as implemented. After deciding that APA applies to DACA, they went on to find that the rescission was in violation. I don't believe that they had any finding on whether the implementation was in violation, because that wasn't the question at hand I guess.