Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589

In the Supreme Court of the United States
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
BRIEF OF 143 U.S. BUSINESS
ASSOCIATIONS AND COMPANIES
AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
ANDREW J. PINCUS
Counsel of Record
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 263-3000
apincus@mayerbrown.com
KAREN W. LIN
Mayer Brown LLP
1221 Avenue of the
Americas
New York, NY 10020
(212) 506-2500
Counsel for Amici Curiae
Additional Captions Listed On Inside Cover

 DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit

 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .......................1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT ...............................................................2
ARGUMENT ...............................................................3
I. RESCINDING DACA WILL HARM U.S.
COMPANIES AND THE ENTIRE
ECONOMY. ............................................................3
A. Dreamers Contribute To The Success Of
U.S. Companies And The Economy As A
Whole.................................................................5
B. Dreamers Help Grow The Economy By
Filling Jobs That Otherwise Would
Remain Vacant Due To An Insufficient
Supply Of Workers. ..........................................9
C. Rescinding DACA Will Inflict Enormous
Harm On Individuals, Companies, And
The Economy................................................... 15
II. THE DACA RECISSION IS INVALID. .............. 20
A. The Rescission Decision Is Subject To
Judicial Review Under The APA. .................. 21
B. The Rescission Decision Must Be Set
Aside. ............................................................... 26
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 31

 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012) .............................................. 28
Barahona-Gomez v. Reno,
236 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................. 25
Bonilla v. Lynch,
840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................ 22
Bowrin v. INS,
194 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 1999) ................................ 25
Edison Elec. Inst. v. EPA,
996 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .............................. 23
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,
136 S. Ct. 2117 (2016) .......................................... 26
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,
138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) .......................................... 22
Fornalik v. Perryman,
223 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................ 25
Heckler v. Chaney,
470 U.S. 821 (1985) ........................................ 21, 23
Hotel & Rest. Emps. Union, Local 25 v.
Smith,
846 F.2d 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en
banc) ..................................................................... 29

 iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
I.C.C. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers,
482 U.S. 270 (1987) ........................................ 23, 24
INS v. St. Cyr,
533 U.S. 289 ......................................................... 25
Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) ............................................ 25
Kenney v. Glickman,
96 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 1996) ................................ 23
Kucana v. Holder,
558 U.S. 233 (2010) .............................................. 26
Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC,
135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) .......................................... 26
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137 (1803) .................................................. 22
Montana Air Chapter No. 29 v. Fed.
Labor Relations Auth.,
898 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................ 23
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA,
980 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................. 23
Reno v. American Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee,
525 U.S. 471 (1999) ........................................ 25, 30

 iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Safe Air For Everyone v. EPA,
488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................. 26
SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
318 U.S. 80 (1943) ................................................ 26
Sharkey v. Quarantillo,
541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................... 23
Texas v. United States,
809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................ 25
Transitional Hosps. Corp. of La. v.
Shalala,
222 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ............................ 26
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt,
470 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................... 26

STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
5 U.S.C. § 701 ............................................................ 21
6 U.S.C. § 202 ............................................................ 27
8 U.S.C. § 1103 .......................................................... 28
8 U.S.C. § 1252 .......................................................... 24
8 U.S.C. § 1324a ........................................................ 31
49 U.S.C. § 30301 note .............................................. 30

 v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
8 C.F.R. § 274a.12 ..................................................... 30
MISCELLANEOUS
44 Fed. Reg. 43,480 ................................................... 31
51 Fed. Reg. 39,385 ................................................... 31
Alan Nelson, Legalization and Family
Fairness: An Analysis 64 No. 41 Interpreter Releases 1191 (Oct. 21,
1987) ..................................................................... 29
American Immigration Council,
Executive Grants of Temporary
Immigration Relief, 1956-Present
(Oct. 2014), https://goo.gl/Q87gqn ....................... 29
Andorra Bruno et al., CRS, Analysis of
June 15, 2012 DHS Memorandum,
Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
with Respect to Individuals Who
Came to the United States as
Children App’x (July 13, 2012),
https://goo.gl/deiGYz ............................................ 29
Ben Gitis & Jacqueline Varas, Am.
Action Forum, The Labor and
Output Declines From Removing All
Undocumented Immigrants (May 5,
2016), https://goo.gl/UAt3dJ ................................ 19

 vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Bob Davis, The Thorny Economics of
Illegal Immigration, Wall St. J. (Feb.
9, 2016) ................................................................. 18
Buttonwood, Keep on Trucking, The
Economist (Feb. 11, 2012).................................... 10
Ctr. for Am. Progress, Results of Tom K.
Wong, United We Dream, National
Immigration Law Center, and Center
for American Progress National
Survey (2016), https://goo.gl/pe2i17 .................... 13
Dan Kosten, Nat’l Immigration Forum,
Immigrants as Economic
Contributors: Immigrant Tax
Contributions and Spending Power
(Sept. 6, 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/ycohpups ................................. 4
David Bier, Cato Inst., Ending DACA
Will Impose Billions in Employer
Compliance Costs (Sept. 1, 2017),
https://goo.gl/1FMidk ........................................... 17
David Bier, Cato Inst., Five Myths
About DACA (Sept. 7, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/ydy2qx3q ............................... 10

 vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
David Dyssegaard Kalick, Americas
Soc’y/Council of the Americas,
Bringing Vitality to Main Street:
How Immigrant Small Businesses
Help Local Economies Grow (Jan.
2015) https://tinyurl.com/lzuglue .......................... 7
David Kenny, Kenny: One Dreamer,
Weathering Two Storms, Houston
Chronicle (Dec. 3, 2017),
https://goo.gl/562Pme ........................................... 14
Deloitte, Waiter, Is That Inclusion in
My Soup? A New Recipe to Improve
Business Performance (2013),
https://tinyurl.com/jnnszk4 .................................... 6
Economics A-Z Terms Beginning with L,
The Economist,
https://goo.gl/BvRwKU......................................... 10
Francesc Ortega et al., The Economic
Effects of Providing Legal Status to
DREAMers, IZA Discussion Paper
No. 11281 (Jan. 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/y9kx52bz ......................... 11, 17
Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants
on U.S. Employment and
Productivity, Fed. Reserve Bank of
San Francisco Econ. Letter (Aug. 30,
2010), https://goo.gl/jK17fc ............................ 10, 15

 viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Gretchen Frazee, 4 Myths About How
Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy,
PBS NewsHour (Nov. 2, 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/yxlwzkth ............................... 11
H.R. Rep. No. 111-157 (2009).................................... 28
Heather Boushey & Sarah Jane Glynn,
Ctr. for Am. Progress, There Are
Significant Business Costs to
Replacing Employees (Nov. 16,
2012), https://goo.gl/ZSmRLq .............................. 18
Ike Brannon & Logan Albright, The
Cato Inst., The Economic and Fiscal
Impact of Repealing DACA 1 (Jan.
18, 2017), https://goo.gl/jFXw4g .......................... 16
Interim Relief for Certain Foreign
Academic Students Adversely
Affected by Hurricane Katrina:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
(Nov. 25, 2005),
https://tinyurl.com/y68s86cy................................ 30
Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum,
How Immigration Helps U.S.
Workers and the Economy (Mar. 20,
2017), https://goo.gl/ovHQEh; .............................. 11

 ix
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum,
The Fiscal Implications of the DACA
Program (Jan. 18, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y36tlgh9 .............................................. 16
Jose Magaña-Salgado, Immigrant Legal
Res. Ctr., Money on the Table: The
Economic Cost of Ending DACA 4
(2016), https://goo.gl/3ZwGVJ ....................... 16, 17
Jose Magaña-Salgado & Tom K. Wong,
Immigration Legal Res. Cntr.,
Draining the Trust Funds (Oct.
2017), https://tinyurl.com/y6y65jvy ..................... 16
Julia Gelatt, Migration Pol’y Inst., All
Eyes Turn to Congress, Following
Trump Decision to Terminate DACA
Program (Sept. 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/yyv89mjb............................... 22
Katherine W. Phillips, How Diversity
Makes Us Smarter, Scientific
American (Oct. 1, 2014)
https://tinyurl.com/zo3asdr .................................... 6
Kenneth Megan, Bipartisan Policy Ctr.,
Immigration and the Labor Force
(Aug. 25, 2015),
https://goo.gl/8p3SP8 ........................................... 10

 x
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
ManpowerGroup, 2018 Talent Shortage
Survey: Solving the Talent Shortage
(ManpowerGroup 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/y8vxvvf7 ................................ 12
Maria E. Enchautegui, Immigrant and
Native Workers Compete for Different
Low-Skilled Jobs, The Urban
Institute: Urban Wire (Oct. 13,
2015), https://tinyurl.com/ycayp6ky .................... 11
Martin Crutsinger, Thanks to
Consumers, the US Economy Is Still
Rising Steadily, USA Today (Aug.
29, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y2ngbkch ............................................... 8
Matthew Denhart, George W. Bush
Institute, America’s Advantage: A
Handbook on Immigration and
Economic Growth (3d ed., Sept.
2017), https://tinyurl.com/y4ykokn9 ......... 4, 11, 12
Mem. from Donald Neufeld, USCIS,
Guidance Regarding Surviving
Spouses of Deceased U.S. Citizens
and Their Children (June 15, 2009),
https://goo.gl/SHaCVZ.......................................... 30

 xi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Mem. from Elaine C. Duke, “Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion With
Respect to Individuals Who Came to
the United States as Children”
(Sept. 5, 2017) ...................................................... 20
Mem. from Gene McNary, Comm’r, INS,
to Reg’l Comm’rs, Family Fairness:
Guidelines for Voluntary Departure
under 8 CFR 242.5 for the Ineligible
Spouses and Children of Legalized
Aliens (Feb. 2, 1990), 67 No. 6
Interpreter Releases 153, app. I
(Feb. 5, 1990) ........................................................ 29
Mem. from Janet Napolitano to David
V. Aguilar (June 15, 2012),
https://tinyurl.com/zzxfoue .................................... 2
Mem. from Michael D. Croning, INS, for
Michael A. Perason, INS, VTVPA
Policy Memorandum #2—“T” and
“U” Nonimmigrant Visas (Aug. 30,
2001), https://tinyurl.com/yxpztydf .................... 30
Mem. from Paul Virtue, INS, Supplemental Guidance on Battered Alien
Self-Petitioning Process and Related
Issues (May 6, 1997), 74 No. 41 Interpreter Releases 962 ......................................... 30

 xii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Michael A. Clemens, Does Kicking Out
Mexicans Create Jobs?, Politico Magazine (Feb. 15, 2017),
https://goo.gl/XwLj1x ........................................... 19
Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., Small
Business Jobs Report: Small
Business Owners’ Difficulty Finding
Qualified Workers Reaches Survey
High in August (Aug. 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/y4l4kn9w ........................ 12, 15
Nat’l Fedn. Of Indep. Bus., Small
Business Optimism Index (Aug.
2019), https://tinyurl.com/y72v3t69 .................... 12
New Am. Economy, Sizing Up the Gap
in our Supply of STEM Workers:
Data & Analysis (Mar. 29, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/y6275mgb.............................. 13
New Am. Economy, Spotlight on the
DACA-Eligible Population (Feb. 8,
2018), https://tinyurl.com/y2fyhf9a ............. 5, 7, 15
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka et al., A New
Threat to DACA Could Cost States
Billions of Dollars, Ctr. for Am.
Progress (July 21, 2017),
https://goo.gl/7udtFu ............................................ 16

 xiii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, What We Know
About DACA Recipients in the
United States, Ctr. for Am. Progress
(Sept. 5, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/y4xc6sf4 .................. 8, 9, 13, 15
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, What We Know
About DACA Recipients, By State,
Ctr. for Am. Progress (Sept. 12,
2019), https://tinyurl.com/yxttwcm9 ..................... 9
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Without
Action, More Dreamers Than Ever
Before Could See Their DACA Expire
in October, Ctr. for Am. Progress,
Aug. 15, 2019,
https://tinyurl.com/y38uvt4s.................................. 4
I Felt Like a Normal American Kid . . .
Then Everything Changed,
THINKPolicy Blog (Oct. 9, 2017),
https://goo.gl/oV9P7h ........................................... 14
My American Dream, Minus the Paperwork, THINKPolicy Blog (Oct. 3,
2017), https://goo.gl/876JDm ............................... 14
P’ship for a New Am. Econ., Open for
Business: How Immigrants Are
Driving Business Creation in the
United States 12 (Aug. 2012),
https://goo.gl/3mFkVz ............................................ 4

 xiv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Paul Krugman, Opinion, Lumps of
Labor, N.Y. Times (Oct. 7, 2003),
https://goo.gl/GyYTG5 .......................................... 10
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the
President: Engage to Excel:
Producing One Million Additional
College Graduates with Degrees in
Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (Feb. 2012),
https://goo.gl/v2YRVD .......................................... 13
President Dwight Eisenhower,
Statement Concerning the Entry Into
the United States of Adopted
Foreign-Born Orphans (Oct. 26,
1956), https://goo.gl/BkztnZ ................................. 29
Rachel Unruh & Amanda BergsonShilcock, Nat’l Skills Coalition,
Missing in Action (Feb. 2015),
https://goo.gl/gokfJW............................................ 12
Ryan Nunn, et al., A Dozen Facts about
Immigration, Brookings, Inst. (Oct.
2018), https://tinyurl.com/y5ra3r8l ..................... 15

 xv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Sara McElmurry, Ctr. for Am. Progress,
Proactive and Patient: Managing
Immigration and Demographic
Change in 2 Rural Nebraska
Communities, Nov. 14, 2018,
https://tinyurl.com/y4lu3etx .................................. 7
Sarah Bohn et al., Do E-Verify
Mandates Improve Labor Market
Outcomes of Low-Skilled Native and
Legal Immigrant Workers? (May
2014), https://goo.gl/7UihSE ................................ 18
Sarah Elizabeth Richards, How Fear of
Deportation Puts Stress on Families,
The Atlantic (Mar. 22, 2017),
https://goo.gl/qDgeRf ............................................ 17
Tiziana Rinaldi & Angilee Shah, Immigration Limbo Is a ‘Tug of Emotions.’
It’s Also a Mental Health Issue,
Mental Health Issue, PRI’s The
World (Aug. 22, 2017),
https://goo.gl/WLXMZ4; ....................................... 17
Tom K. Wong et al., Ctr. for Am.
Progress, DACA Recipients’
Economic and Educational Gains
Continue to Grow (Aug. 28, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/y7dqgwd4 ................................ 5

 xvi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
Tom K. Wong, et al., Ctr. for Am. Progress, DACA Recipients’ Livelihoods,
Families, and Sense of Security Are
at Stake This November, (Sept. 19,
2019), https://tinyurl.com/y3c742re....... 6, 8, 13, 14
Tom K. Wong et al., United We Dream,
Ending DACA Would Have WideRanging Effects but Immigrant
Youth are Fired Up and Politically
Engaged (Aug. 23, 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/y49stg87 ................................ 17
Tony Romm, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty
Is in D.C. Urging Congress to Save
DACA (Sept. 19, 2017),
https://goo.gl/NQeJUc .......................................... 14
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Immigration Myths and Facts
(Apr. 14, 2016),
https://tinyurl.com/yay4xjm9............................... 11
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv.,
Number of Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals by Fiscal Year, Quarter, Intake and Case Status Fiscal Year
2012-2019 (June 30, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y5j36gyj ................................................. 2

 xvii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
Page(s)
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Employment Projections,
https://tinyurl.com/y4lzn72u ............................... 15
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Labor Force Statistics
from the Current Population Survey,
https://tinyurl.com/zyq5xlx (last
visited Oct. 2, 2019) ............................................. 11
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey (Sept. 10, 2019)
https://tinyurl.com/y57pxqrb ......................... 11, 12
UndocuScholars Project, In the
Shadows of the Ivory Tower:
Undocumented Undergraduates and
the Liminal State of Immigration
Reform (2015),
https://tinyurl.com/y7svqsxr ................................ 14
World Health Org. & Int’l Labour Org.,
Mental Health And Work: Impact,
Issues and Good Practices (2000),
https://goo.gl/ecH1Ut ........................................... 17

 INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1
Amici include 143 individual companies that collectively contribute trillions of dollars in annual revenue to the American economy and have millions of employees.
Some amici are business associations that together represent millions of companies that fuel the
American economy—including the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
of America, the Retail Industry Leaders Association,
the American Hotel & Lodging Association, BSA The
Software Alliance, the Information Technology Industry Council, TechNet, the National Association of
State Latino Chambers of Commerce, the Software &
Information Industry Association, the Semiconductor
Industry Association, and the HR Policy Association.
The list of the amici is set forth in Appendix A.
Many amici and their members employ individuals who participate in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program—young people who
are now able to live and work in the country that has
been their home for most of their lives. In addition,
amici’s customers and end users are DACA recipients;
and amici’s businesses benefit from DACA recipients’
contributions to the overall economy through their tax
payments, spending, and investments. Accordingly,

No party or counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or
in part, and no one other than amici, their members, or their
counsel funded the preparation or submission of this brief. See
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6. Counsel for petitioners and respondents have
filed blanket consents to the filing of amicus briefs.
1

 2
amici have a strong interest in DACA recipients’ continued ability to work and participate in our country’s
economy and in our society generally.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Since its inception, DACA has had an enormous
impact on the lives of over 825,000 young people who
“were brought to this country as children and know
only this country as home.”2 DACA enabled those
young individuals to participate fully for the first time
in all aspects of our society without the constant and
crippling fear of deportation.3 And, based on
longstanding federal regulations ratified by Congress,
the deferral of removal granted to DACA recipients
made them eligible to apply for work authorization,
thereby enabling them to obtain jobs commensurate
with their skills and education.
But the beneficial effects of DACA have not been
limited to those individuals. By expanding the opportunities available to DACA recipients, this program
has benefitted America’s companies, our Nation’s
economy, and all Americans. Indeed, employment of
DACA recipients expands work opportunities for everyone, because employment is not a zero-sum game.
DACA recipients are filling vacancies at companies
that otherwise would not be able to attract workers for

Mem. from Janet Napolitano to David V. Aguilar (June 15,
2012), https://tinyurl.com/zzxfoue; U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv., Number of Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals by Fiscal Year, Quarter, Intake
and Case Status Fiscal Year 2012-2019 (June 30, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/y5j36gyj.
2

3

Mem. from Janet Napolitano, supra n.2.

 3
open positions. They are creating businesses that employ other Americans. And their increased wages lead
to higher tax revenues and expansion of our national
GDP—producing new jobs and benefits for all Americans.
Eliminating DACA will inflict serious harm on
U.S. companies, all workers, and the American economy as a whole. Companies will lose valued employees. Workers will lose employers and co-workers. Our
national GDP will lose up to $460.3 billion, and tax
revenues will be reduced by approximately $90 billion,
over the next decade.
Those harms should not occur, however, because
the rescission of DACA must be set aside under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded DACA
based entirely on its legal conclusion that DACA exceeds the agency’s authority. That legal determination is subject to judicial review. Courts consistently
review agencies’ broadly-applicable policies that rest
on such legal determinations.
And DHS’s legal determination is wrong. DACA
closely resembles deferred action programs adopted in
the past, and—given Congress’s express recognition of
this deferred action authority and the Executive
Branch’s substantial authority with respect to immigration matters—it does not exceed the Department’s
statutory authority.
ARGUMENT
I.

RESCINDING DACA WILL HARM U.S. COMPANIES AND THE ENTIRE ECONOMY.

Immigrants have long been essential to our Nation’s growth and prosperity. They have contributed

 4
to important breakthroughs in science and innovation4; they have created businesses—including many
Fortune 500 companies—that generate over $775 billion in sales and provide numerous jobs to others5; and
they pay over $300 billion in yearly state, local, and
federal taxes.6
Even though DACA is relatively new, DACA recipients—often referred to as “Dreamers”—have contributed significantly to America’s prosperity.
DACA enabled more than 825,000 individuals7 to
come out of the shadows, participate in the economy,
and contribute to U.S. companies and the economy,
which benefits us all. Rescinding DACA will harm not
only individual recipients and their families, friends,
and co-workers, but also the many U.S. businesses

4 Matthew Denhart, George W. Bush Institute, America’s Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth 70,
76 (3d ed., Sept. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y4ykokn9.

P’ship for a New Am. Econ., Open for Business: How Immigrants Are Driving Business Creation in the United States 12, 14
(Aug. 2012), https://goo.gl/3mFkVz; Denhart, supra n.4, at 84100.
5

6 Dan Kosten, Nat’l Immigration Forum, Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Tax Contributions and Spending
Power (Sept. 6, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/ycohpups.

The number of DACA recipients has declined from over
800,000 in 2017 to approximately 661,000 today because eligible
individuals who never had DACA are no longer able to apply for
it, and many of those who did have it have either adjusted to
permanent resident status or another status or did not renew or
otherwise lost their DACA status. Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Without Action, More Dreamers Than Ever Before Could See Their
DACA Expire in October, Ctr. for Am. Progress, Aug. 15, 2019,
https://tinyurl.com/y38uvt4s.
7

 5
that count on them to help fuel continued innovation
and economic growth.
A. Dreamers Contribute To The Success Of
U.S. Companies And The Economy As A
Whole.
Dreamers have become essential contributors to
American companies and the American economy.
Prior to DACA, these young people—who have obtained at least a high school degree and, in many
cases, have finished college and graduate school—
would have been unable to obtain work authorization,
and therefore unable to put their education and skills
to productive use.
DACA changed that and, as a result, over 90 percent of Dreamers are employed in virtually every sector of the economy—from construction workers to
nurses to cooks to computer scientists.8 Their employment supports the growth of U.S. companies and the
economy in a number of ways.
1. Dreamers Are Valued Employees.
First, Dreamers contribute directly to the success
of U.S. companies, including many amici. At least 72
percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ
DACA recipients—including IBM, Walmart, Apple,
General Motors, Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, Home
Depot, and Wells Fargo, among others—as do many
others, including Uber and Lyft.9 Those companies

New Am. Economy, Spotlight on the DACA-Eligible Population (Feb. 8, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y2fyhf9a.

8

Tom K. Wong et al., Ctr. for Am. Progress, DACA Recipients’
Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow (Aug. 28,
2017), https://tinyurl.com/y7dqgwd4.
9

 6
represent every major sector of the U.S. economy and
generate almost $3 trillion in annual revenue.
Dreamers’ contributions are not limited to their
work product alone. Immigrants like Dreamers bring
diverse backgrounds and experiences to their workplaces, which bolster their colleagues’ creativity and
innovation.10 People with different backgrounds offer
different perspectives when confronted with a problem, and their different opinions and perspectives enable colleagues to anticipate alternative possibilities
and work harder to evaluate those possibilities.11
2. Dreamers Are Business Owners.
Second, many Dreamers are entrepreneurs, who
have created companies themselves. Six percent of
Dreamers (and nearly nine percent of Dreamers 25
years and older) started their own businesses after receiving DACA.12 Those businesses create jobs for
other U.S. residents: Each DACA business owner with
full-time employees employs on average 4.5 other
workers.13 That is nearly 86,000 additional jobs that
otherwise would not exist.

See Katherine W. Phillips, How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,
Scientific American, Oct. 1, 2014, https://tinyurl.com/y4vrn8q2.

10

Ibid.; see also Deloitte, Waiter, Is That Inclusion in My Soup?
A New Recipe to Improve Business Performance 8 (2013),
https://tinyurl.com/jnnszk4.
11

12 Tom K. Wong, et al., Ctr. for Am. Progress, DACA Recipients’
Livelihoods, Families, and Sense of Security Are at Stake This
November (Sept. 19, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y3c742re; see also
New Am. Economy, Spotlight, supra n.8 (4.5 percent of DACAeligible individuals are entrepreneurs).
13

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

 7
The businesses started by Dreamers also generate
revenue: In 2015, DACA-eligible entrepreneurs had a
total business income of $658.7 million.14 Those funds
are spent on wages, or goods and services from other
companies, or reinvested, producing more overall
growth.
This entrepreneurial activity is particularly focused on the local, small business level. Immigrants
make up an outsized proportion of Main Street business owners.15 Those businesses attract others in the
community, which often helps to revitalize declining
neighborhoods and reverse declining population
trends.16 Immigrant-owned businesses have revived
communities from Philadelphia to Lexington, Nebraska to Minneapolis-St. Paul to Nashville.17
3. Dreamers Are Consumers.
Third, Dreamers also consume the goods produced and services provided by U.S. companies—contributing to the growth of those companies and the
economy as a whole.
Not surprisingly, receiving a grant of deferred action under DACA—and the resulting eligibility to ap-

14

New Am. Economy, Spotlight, supra n. 8.

David Dyssegaard Kalick, Americas Soc’y/Council of the Americas, Bringing Vitality to Main Street: How Immigrant Small
Businesses Help Local Economies Grow at 2, 5, 8-9, Jan. 2015,
https://tinyurl.com/lzuglue.
15

16

Id. at 12.

Id. at 14-34; Sara McElmurry, Ctr. for Am. Progress, Proactive
and Patient: Managing Immigration and Demographic Change
in 2 Rural Nebraska Communities, Nov. 14, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/y4lu3etx.
17

 8
ply for work authorization—increases Dreamers’ incomes. Fifty-eight percent of recently-surveyed
Dreamers were able to obtain better-paying jobs; 53
percent were able to move to a job that “better fits
[their] education and training.”18 That, in turn, resulted in average wage increases for Dreamers of 86
percent—128 percent for those 25 years and older—
after receiving DACA.19 In total, Dreamers and their
households exercise $24.1 billion in spending power
(income remaining after paying taxes) each year.20
This increased purchasing power—combined with
the increased stability and security resulting from receiving a grant of deferred action—has enabled
Dreamers to make purchases and investments that
grow our Nation’s economy.
Consumer spending accounts for nearly 70 percent of all economic growth.21 Sixty percent of Dreamers reported buying their first car after receiving
DACA; fourteen percent reported purchasing their
first home.22 Dreamers are responsible for $613.8 million in annual mortgage payments, on top of $2.3 billion in rental payments to landlords.23

18

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

19

Id.

20 Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Ctr. for Am. Progress, What We Know
About DACA Recipients in the United States (Sept. 5, 2019),
https://tinyurl.com/y4xc6sf4.

Martin Crutsinger, Thanks to Consumers, the US Economy Is
Still Rising Steadily, USA Today (Aug. 29, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y2ngbkch.
21

22

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

23

Svajlenka, supra n.20.

 9
Dreamers’ higher wages also result in increased
fiscal contributions in the form of taxes. Dreamers and
their households pay $5.7 billion in federal taxes and
$3.1 billion in state and local taxes annually.24 In 41
states and the District of Columbia, the state and local
tax contributions of Dreamers’ households total more
than $1 million annually; in 35 states, their contributions are more than $10 million; and in 12 states, they
are more than $50 million.25 These taxes support
American communities and the people and companies
in those communities—funding local schools, infrastructure investments, and services and programs
like police, fire protection, and economic development.
DACA recipients’ payroll taxes also support Social Security and Medicare.
Through these myriad contributions, Dreamers
post-DACA have supported the growth and success of
the U.S. economy.
B. Dreamers Help Grow The Economy By
Filling Jobs That Otherwise Would Remain Vacant Due To An Insufficient Supply Of Workers.
These benefits to the U.S. economy do not come at
the expense of U.S.-born workers. Studies have consistently found that immigrants do not displace U.S.born workers. They instead help grow the economy
and create more opportunities for U.S.-born workers
by filling positions that otherwise would remain vacant because of a shortage of qualified workers.
24

Svajlenka, supra n.20.

25 Nicole Prchal Svajlenka, Ctr. for Am. Progress, What We Know
About DACA Recipients, By State (Sept. 12, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/yxttwcm9.

 10
1. DACA Recipients’ Participation In The
Workforce Expands The Number Of Jobs
Available To Everyone.
“[O]ne of the best-known fallacies in economics” is
the “lump of labor fallacy.”26 Economists from across
the policy and political spectrum have discredited the
notion that “there is a fixed amount of work to be
done—a lump of labour”—such that an increase in the
number of workers reduces the number of available
jobs.27 Rather, the indisputable reality is that jobs beget more jobs. “When people work for a living, they
earn money. They spend that money on goods and services that are produced by other people.”28 That
greater demand for goods and services in turn creates
more jobs.
That has long been America’s experience. “From
1970 to 2017, the U.S. labor force doubled. Rather
than ending up with a 50 percent unemployment rate,
U.S. employment doubled.”29 Studies demonstrate
Economics A-Z Terms Beginning with L, The Economist,
https://goo.gl/BvRwKU.

26

Id.; see also Paul Krugman, Opinion, Lumps of Labor, N.Y.
Times (Oct. 7, 2003), https://goo.gl/GyYTG5.
27

Buttonwood, Keep on Trucking, The Economist (Feb. 11, 2012),
https://goo.gl/x8vqaL; see also Kenneth Megan, Bipartisan Policy
Ctr., Immigration and the Labor Force (Aug. 25, 2015),
https://goo.gl/8p3SP8 (“[A] breadth of research indicates that immigration can be complementary to native born employment, as
it spurs demand for goods and services”); Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity, Fed.
Reserve Bank of San Francisco Econ. Letter (Aug. 30, 2010),
https://goo.gl/jK17fc.
28

David Bier, Cato Inst., Five Myths About DACA (Sept. 7, 2017),
https://tinyurl.com/ydy2qx3q.
29

 11
that increased immigration levels into the U.S. have
had largely positive impacts on the employment levels
and incomes of U.S.-born workers.30
These findings hold true today. The unemployment rate has more than halved since 2012, when
DACA was first implemented.31 The number of total
job openings has increased.32 And studies have found
that DACA has not had any significant effect on the
wages of U.S.-born workers.33
2. Dreamers Fill Critical Labor Shortages.
Studies repeatedly show that immigrants complement, rather than compete with, U.S.-born workers in
the workforce.34 The same holds true for Dreamers,

See Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum, How Immigration
Helps U.S. Workers and the Economy (Mar. 20, 2017),
https://goo.gl/ovHQEh; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Immigration
Myths and Facts (Apr. 14, 2016), https://tinyurl.com/yay4xjm9.
30

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force
Statistics from the Current Population Survey, https://tinyurl.com/zyq5xlx (last visited Oct. 2, 2019).
31

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings
and Labor Turnover Survey (Sept. 10, 2019) https://tinyurl.com/y57pxqrb.
32

Francesc Ortega et al., The Economic Effects of Providing Legal Status to DREAMers 18, IZA Discussion Paper No. 11281
(Jan. 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y9kx52bz.
33

Denhart, supra n.4, at 118; Gretchen Frazee, 4 Myths About
How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy, PBS NewsHour (Nov.
2, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/yxlwzkth; Maria E. Enchautegui,
Immigrant and Native Workers Compete for Different LowSkilled Jobs, The Urban Institute: Urban Wire (Oct. 13, 2015),
https://tinyurl.com/ycayp6ky; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supra
n.30.
34

 12
who are helping to fill holes in the workforce that are
not being filled by U.S.-born workers.
U.S. job creation has been outpacing supply. As a
result, the U.S. unemployment rate is currently quite
low, and the number of job openings is high. In June
2019, the U.S. had 7.4 million job openings, but only 6
million people looking for work.35 Sixty-four percent of
small business owners reported hiring or trying to
hire workers, but of those, 89 percent reported having
“few or no ‘qualified’ applicants.”36 This gap in demand and supply has led commentators to state that
“[i]f the widely discussed slowdown occurs, a significant contributor will be the unavailability of labor.”37
Moreover, that gap is likely to be exacerbated as the
“baby boom” generation retires.38
U.S. employers have reported particular difficulty
filling skilled labor positions, such as teachers, accounting and finance staff, nurses, and engineers.39

35

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, supra n.32..

36 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., Small Business Optimism Index
(Aug. 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y72v3t69.
37

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., supra n.36.

38

Denhart, supra n.4, at 60.

39 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., Small Business Jobs Report: Small
Business Owners’ Difficulty Finding Qualified Workers Reaches
Survey High in August (Aug. 2019), https://tinyurl.com/y4l4kn9w
(Thirty-three percent of small business owners have job openings
for skilled workers); See ManpowerGroup, 2018 Talent Shortage
Survey: Solving the Talent Shortage (ManpowerGroup 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/y8vxvvf7; see also Rachel Unruh & Amanda
Bergson-Shilcock, Nat’l Skills Coalition, Missing in Action 3-4
(Feb. 2015), https://goo.gl/gokfJW.

 13
And the U.S. faces a shortfall of millions of professionals in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the next few years.40
Dreamers help to fill these unfilled positions.
Dreamers have at least a high school degree or equivalent—and 46 percent have obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher.41 Twenty percent have received professional licenses since receiving DACA.42 In other
words, they are qualified for the skilled labor jobs for
which there is a severe shortage of workers.
Reality reflects Dreamers’ paper qualifications. A
significant number of Dreamers are employed in the
education and health services industries, as well as in
management and business occupations.43 Many others work in technology, science, and finance.44
Amici’s experiences are illustrative. For example,
IBM has at least 31 Dreamers within the company
who work in areas such as software development and

New Am. Economy, Sizing Up the Gap in our Supply of STEM
Workers: Data & Analysis (Mar. 29, 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y6275mgb; see also President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, Report to the President: Engage to Excel:
Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 1
(Feb. 2012), https://goo.gl/v2YRVD.
40

41

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

42

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

Svajlenka, supra n.20; Ctr. for Am. Progress, Results of Tom
K. Wong, United We Dream, National Immigration Law Center,
and Center for American Progress National Survey 4 (2016),
https://goo.gl/pe2i17.
43

44

Ctr. for Am. Progress, Results, supra n.43.

 14
client support.45 One IBM Dreamer provided critical
remote technical support to ensure continuity of
IBM’s Cloud services when Hurricane Harvey flooded
Houston.46 Lyft employs at least one Dreamer as a
software engineer, who serves as one of the tech leads
of the team driving critical data projects.47
And Dreamers’ contributions to these fields will
likely only increase. By making it possible for Dreamers to apply for work authorization, DACA has made
pursuing higher education both possible and worthwhile for Dreamers. Forty percent are currently in
school—almost all of whom are working toward a
bachelor’s or post-graduate degree.48 And a substantial portion of those individuals are pursuing studies
in STEM fields—acquiring the knowledge and skills
that U.S. companies so desperately need to continue
to innovate and stay competitive.49
Dreamers in occupations that do not require advanced degrees are similarly filling under-met labor
needs. Sixty-eight percent of small business owners
See Tony Romm, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty Is in D.C. Urging
Congress to Save DACA, Recode.net (Sept. 19, 2017),
https://goo.gl/NQeJUc; My American Dream, Minus the Paperwork, THINKPolicy Blog (Oct. 3, 2017), https://goo.gl/876JDm; I
Felt Like a Normal American Kid . . . Then Everything Changed,
THINKPolicy Blog (Oct. 9, 2017), https://goo.gl/oV9P7h.
45

See David Kenny, Kenny: One Dreamer, Weathering Two
Storms, Houston Chronicle (Dec. 3, 2017), https://goo.gl/562Pme.
46

47 See Decl. of Emily Nishi ¶ 4, JA1099, Doc. 54, Batalla Vidal v.
Nielsen, No. 18-485 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018).
48

Wong, Livelihoods, supra n.12.

The UndocuScholars Project, In the Shadows of the Ivory
Tower: Undocumented Undergraduates and the Liminal State of
Immigration Reform 8 (2015), https://tinyurl.com/y7svqsxr.
49

 15
reported having “few or no qualified applicants” for
construction jobs.50 Construction, meanwhile, is the
second largest industry employing DACA-eligible individuals.51 Additionally, there are significant labor
shortages in food preparation and serving-related occupations and personal care and services occupations.52 But “[a]mong less-educated workers, those
born in the United States tend to have jobs in manufacturing or mining, while immigrants tend to have
jobs in personal services and agriculture.”53 And a
substantial proportion of Dreamers have jobs in food
preparation.54
In sum, DACA has enabled thousands of young
people who grew up in the United States to obtain jobs
that fill critical gaps in the economy and that produce
benefits for United States’ workers, companies, and
economy.
C. Rescinding DACA Will Inflict Enormous
Harm On Individuals, Companies, And
The Economy.
All of the above benefits—and more—will be lost
if DACA’s rescission is permitted to stand. Over the
next decade, our country’s GDP would lose between
$215 and $460.3 billion; and federal tax revenue will

50

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus., supra n.39.

New Am. Economy, Spotlight, supra n.8; cf. Ryan Nunn, et al.,
A Dozen Facts about Immigration (Oct. 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y5ra3r8l.
51

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment
Projections, https://tinyurl.com/y4lzn72u.
52

53

Peri, supra n.28.

54

Svajlenka, supra n.20.

 16
drop by approximately $60 to 90 billion.55 Texas alone
would lose $6.3 billion in GDP; California would experience a $11.6 billion decline in GDP.56 And Social Security and Medicare contributions would lose out on
$40.9 billion over 10 years.57
This economic contraction would result directly
from Dreamers’ loss of work authorization. Under federal law, employers are prohibited from employing individuals who do not have a valid work authorization
document. Accordingly, all of the hundreds of thousands of employed Dreamers would lose their jobs. In
addition to the obvious harm to Dreamers themselves,
the loss of so many workers will have severe repercussions for U.S. companies and workers.
Already, the possibility that DACA’s rescission
might go into effect is impacting Dreamers and, by extension, the companies for which they work. Dream-

See Decl. of Ike Brannon & Logan Albright ¶ 11, Doc. 45-3 at
359, Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec’y,
No. 18-18056 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018); Nicole Prchal Svajlenka
et al., Ctr. for Am. Progress, A New Threat to DACA Could Cost
States Billions of Dollars (July 21, 2017), https://goo.gl/7udtFu;
Jose Magaña-Salgado, Immigrant Legal Res. Ctr., Money on the
Table: The Economic Cost of Ending DACA 4, 6-7 (2016),
https://goo.gl/3ZwGVJ; see also Ike Brannon & Logan Albright,
The Cato Inst., The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing
DACA 1 (Jan. 18, 2017), https://goo.gl/jFXw4g; Jacqueline Varas,
Am. Action Forum, The Fiscal Implications of the DACA Program (Jan. 18, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y36tlgh9.
55

56

Svajlenka et al., supra n.55.

Jose Magaña-Salgado & Tom K. Wong, Immigration Legal
Res. Cntr., Draining the Trust Funds (Oct. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/y6y65jvy.
57

 17
ers now live with the constant threat of job loss, withdrawal from society, and forced removal from the only
country they have ever known.
Seventy-six percent of Dreamers reported living
with the daily worry of being separated from their
children.58 The fear for the future that is now a daily
part of life for Dreamers and their families affects
both physical and mental health.59 That, in turn, negatively affects employee productivity and performance, illness and absenteeism, accidents, and turnover.60
If this Court permits the DACA rescission to take
effect and thereby end Dreamers’ work authorization,
companies will face an estimated $6.3 billion in costs
to replace Dreamers—if they can even find new employees to fill the empty positions.61 Companies will
forfeit the funds invested in training Dreamers, and
will incur costs recruiting and training new employees, who will be less experienced and therefore less
Tom K. Wong et al., United We Dream, Ending DACA Would
Have Wide-Ranging Effects but Immigrant Youth are Fired Up
and Politically Engaged (Aus. 23, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/y49stg87.
58

See Tiziana Rinaldi & Angilee Shah, Immigration Limbo Is a
‘Tug of Emotions.’ It’s Also a Mental Health Issue, PRI’s The
World (Aug. 22, 2017), https://goo.gl/WLXMZ4; Sarah Elizabeth
Richards, How Fear of Deportation Puts Stress on Families, The
Atlantic (Mar. 22, 2017), https://goo.gl/qDgeRf.
59

See World Health Org. & Int’l Labour Org., Mental Health And
Work: Impact, Issues and Good Practices 1 (2000),
https://goo.gl/ecH1Ut; Ortega, supra n.33, at 9-10.
60

See David Bier, Ending DACA Will Impose Billions in Employer Compliance Costs, Cato Institute (Sept. 1, 2017),
https://goo.gl/1FMidk; see also Magaña-Salgado, supra n.55, at 4.
61

 18
productive.62 These costs are particularly burdensome
for small businesses.
But numbers alone do not come close to capturing
Dreamers’ contributions and the tremendous harm
that will result from their loss. People are the heart of
every business; and every company’s goal is to create
teams that work seamlessly together—teams in which
colleagues support one another both within and outside the workplace. Ripping Dreamers out of their jobs
hurts not only Dreamers, but other employees who
lose friends and colleagues, and companies that lose
trusted members of their teams.
History confirms that forcing Dreamers out of the
workforce will reduce job growth and harm the U.S.
economy. After Arizona passed the Legal Arizona
Workers Act (LAWA) in 2007, which targeted the use
of unauthorized workers, economic growth fell, reducing job opportunities. The State’s total employment
was 2.5 percent less than what it would have been
without the law, and its GDP was reduced by an average of 2 percent a year between 2008 and 2015.63
Similarly, in 1964, the U.S. expelled Mexican
braceros, who were previously permitted to work temporarily in the U.S., mostly on farms. One study revealed that excluding the Mexican braceros “did not
Heather Boushey & Sarah Jane Glynn, Ctr. for Am. Progress,
There Are Significant Business Costs to Replacing Employees
(Nov. 16, 2012), https://goo.gl/ZSmRLq.
62

See Bob Davis, The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration,
Wall St. J. (Feb. 9, 2016), https://goo.gl/j4dd7J; see also Sarah
Bohn et al., Do E-Verify Mandates Improve Labor Market Outcomes of Low-Skilled Native and Legal Immigrant Workers? 1718, 21, 24-25 (May 2014), https://goo.gl/7UihSE (finding that employment rates of U.S.-born men dropped post-LAWA).
63

 19
affect the wages or employment of U.S. farmworkers.”64 Instead, farms responded by eliminating the
jobs—often by moving production abroad or going out
of business.65
Removing Dreamers from the workforce is likely
to have the very same negative effect on U.S. employment. As documented above, companies are already
struggling to fill job openings; additional labor shortages will further hamper productivity and growth.
The resulting drag on the economy will be exacerbated
as Dreamers are forced to shutter businesses—putting the jobs of nearly 86,000 other U.S. workers at
risk—and companies lose the income from Dreamers
and Dreamers’ employees that has helped drive demand and production of goods and services provided
by U.S.-born workers.66
More fundamentally, just as DACA sent a powerful message of inclusion, its rescission tells the immigrants who have been integral to the growth and development of our society and economy for decades that
they are no longer welcome here. As a result, DACA’s

Michael A. Clemens, Does Kicking Out Mexicans Create Jobs?,
Politico Magazine (Feb. 15, 2017), https://goo.gl/XwLj1x.
64

65

Id.

Cf. Ben Gitis & Jacqueline Varas, Am. Action Forum, The Labor and Output Declines From Removing All Undocumented Immigrants (May 5, 2016), https://goo.gl/UAt3dJ (concluding that
removing undocumented immigrants from the workforce would
cause private sector employment to decline by 4 to 6.8 million
workers, would reduce real private sector output by $381.5 to
$623.2 billion, and would have further negative economic impacts through the loss of consumption, investments, and entrepreneurship).
66

 20
rescission will reduce the future ability of U.S. companies to attract individuals from around the world to
support America’s continued economic growth and
prosperity.
II. THE DACA RECISSION IS INVALID.
DHS’s decision to rescind DACA did not rest on a
change in immigration enforcement priorities, or a reassessment of the policy’s costs and benefits, or the financial cost to the federal government of administering DACA. Rather, as the Ninth Circuit and the District Courts for the District of Columbia and Eastern
District of New York correctly recognized,67 DHS
rested its decision on the legal conclusion that DACA
“was effectuated * * * without proper statutory authority” and therefore “was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”68
Because of the across-the-board nature of the rescission determination and the particular justification
given by DHS, that decision is subject to judicial review. And because of the Executive Branch’s broad authority with respect to the relevant immigration matters, the long history of administrative grants of deferred action and work authorization, and Congress’s

18-587 Pet. Supp. Br. App. 35a-43a; 18-588 Pet. App. 39a-42a,
97a; 18-589 Pet. App. 26a-27a, 94a.
67

Mem. from Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary, Dep’t of Homeland Security, on Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum
Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” (Sept. 5,
2017).
68

 21
express recognition of that authority, the agency’s rescission decision must be vacated.69
A. The Rescission Decision Is Subject To Judicial Review Under The APA.
The rescission of DACA—like all agency action—
is subject to review under the APA unless it falls
within one of two narrow exceptions: “(1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a).
Pointing to this Court’s decision in Heckler v.
Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the government argues
that its rescission of DACA is a “decision not to prosecute or enforce” that is “generally committed to an
agency’s absolute discretion” and “unsuitab[le] for judicial review.” U.S. Br. at 18 (quoting Chaney, 470
U.S. at 831).
Chaney stated that an agency’s decision not to enforce the law is “generally” unreviewable, but carefully refrained from holding that all refusals to enforce are unreviewable. And the Court expressly declined to hold unreviewable a refusal to enforce based
on the belief that the agency lacked jurisdiction, observing that such decisions might not be “committed
to agency discretion.” 470 U.S. at 833 n.4.
Judicial review is available here, because three
aspects of the agency decision combine to render the
general Chaney rule inapplicable.
For the reasons explained by Judge Bates (see 18-588 Pet.
App. 103a-108a), the June 2018 memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Nielsen did not provide a justification
for the rescission decision other than that set forth in the initial
rescission memorandum—that the DACA program is unlawful
because it exceeds the Department’s authority.
69

 22
First, the decision to rescind DACA is a broad policy determination, not an individualized exercise of
enforcement discretion. And that policy determination directly affects the lives of close to two million
people—current DACA recipients and individuals
who would be entitled to apply for DACA status.70 It
is therefore fundamentally different from the archetypal decision not to prosecute an individual or not to
enforce a statute with respect to a particular set of
facts.
Second, the rescission decision rested on a purely
legal determination. There accordingly is no risk that
judicial review would require assessment of the policy
considerations or fact-based exercises of discretion
that frequently underlie such decisions.
Courts are fully qualified to review an agency’s interpretation of a statute or the Constitution. See, e.g,
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1629-30
(2018). Indeed, “[i]t is emphatically the province and
duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).
A long line of lower court decisions apply this principle, holding that agency actions that are generally
unreviewable—if based on the agency’s evaluation of
factual and policy factors—nonetheless are reviewable when based on a legal interpretation, including a
legal determination regarding the agency’s jurisdiction or authority.71

70 See Julia Gelatt, Migration Pol’y Inst., All Eyes Turn to Congress, Following Trump Decision to Terminate DACA Program
(Sept. 2017), https://tinyurl.com/yyv89mjb.
71 See, e.g., Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 587 (9th Cir. 2016)
(holding reviewable BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte

 23
The government is wrong in asserting (U.S. Br.
23-25) that I.C.C. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987), supports its contention
that the DACA rescission is not reviewable. That case
involved a decision not to reconsider a prior decision
interpreting a statute. The legal question resolved in
the initial determination “could have been brought
[before the court] by appeal from the original order.”
Id. at 279. In that very different context, the fact that
the Commission based its refusal to reconsider the unauthority to open the petitioner’s motion to reopen his order of
removal where the BIA did not deny the motion “as an exercise
of discretion,” but rather based on the “conclu[sion] that it lacked
the authority to reopen”); Montana Air Chapter No. 29 v. Fed.
Labor Relations Auth., 898 F.2d 753, 756 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding
that Chaney does not apply to decisions “based on a belief that
the agency lacks jurisdiction” or “an agency’s statutory interpretations made in the course of nonenforcement decisions”);
Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 85, 91 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding reviewable USCIS’s rescission of plaintiffs’ lawful permanent
resident (LPR) status where decision was based on agency’s
“nondiscretionary decision[]” that plaintiff did not have LPR status within meaning of rescission statute and regulation); Edison
Elec. Inst. v. EPA, 996 F.2d 326, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[I]nterpretation [of] the substantive requirements of the law * * * is not
the type of discretionary judgment concerning the allocation of
enforcement resources that [Chaney] shields from review.”); Nat’l
Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 980 F.2d 765, 773 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding
reviewable EPA’s nonenforcement decision where plaintiff challenged agency’s “statutory interpretation embodied in [the regulation], * * * and does not contest a particular enforcement decision”); see also Chaney, 470 U.S. at 833 n.4 (suggesting exception
would not apply if case involved “a refusal by the agency to institute proceedings based solely on the belief that it lacks jurisdiction”); Kenney v. Glickman, 96 F.3d 1118, 1123 (8th Cir. 1996)
(interpreting Chaney as applying “to individual, case-by-case determinations of when to enforce existing regulations rather than
permanent policies or standards”).

 24
derlying order on a legal interpretation did not provide a cogent reason for making the refusal to reconsider reviewable. Ibid.
Judicial review of agency decisions based entirely
on legal determinations also serves the important
purpose of promoting accountability. When an agency
rests a broad non-enforcement decision on policybased discretion, citizens who support or oppose the
decision know that the agency bears responsibility for
the determination. That makes clear that any efforts
to either overturn or support the decision should be
directed to agency decisionmakers.
Allowing an agency to rest its decision on purely
legal grounds and yet avoid judicial review has the opposite effect: insulating the agency decisionmaker
from accountability—and responsibility. Even if the
agency’s legal justification is patently incorrect, the
agency would be able to shift responsibility to Congress by asserting a lack of legal authority. And citizens who oppose the decision would blame Congress
for failing to act rather than the agency decisionmakers.
Third, a statute relating to judicial review in the
immigration context provides additional support for
this conclusion.
That provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), states that,
subject to certain exceptions, “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of
any alien arising from the decision or action by the
Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.”
The government contended below that Section
1252(g) precluded judicial review here—but it has

 25
abandoned that argument. U.S. Br. 20. In fact, the
provision bolsters the argument in favor of judicial review.
This Court explained in Reno v. American Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999)
(AAADC), that Section 1252(g) “applies only to three
discrete actions that the Attorney General may take:
her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Id. at 482;
see also id. at 485 (stating that § 1252(g) was “designed to give some measure of protection to ‘no deferred action’ decisions and similar discretionary determinations” (emphasis added)); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 841 (2018) (plurality op.).
Section 1252(g) thus reflects the distinction between fact-specific exercises of discretion in the context of an individual proceeding and other types of decisions, as this Court and the lower courts have recognized.72 Congress focused specifically on enforcementrelated exercises of discretion in the immigration context and specifically did not exclude from judicial review broad policy pronouncements based entirely on
See, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 293 & 311 n.34 (2001)
(§ 1252(g) did not apply to challenge to “Attorney General[’s] interpret[ation]” of statutes); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134,
165 (5th Cir. 2015) (§ 1252(g) did not apply to challenge to
DAPA); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 236 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (9th
Cir. 2001) (§ 1252(g) did not apply to challenge to directives issued by the BIA Chairman and the Chief Immigration Judge
that were based on legal interpretations); Bowrin v. INS, 194
F.3d 483, 488 (4th Cir. 1999) (Ҥ 1252(g) does not apply to agency
interpretations of statutes”); Fornalik v. Perryman, 223 F.3d 523,
532 (7th Cir. 2000) (habeas petition filed before INS filed initial
filing in removal case was not request for “relief from a decision
to commence proceedings”).
72

 26
an agency’s legal determination. That congressional
determination supports review here.
In sum, the particular characteristics of this decision combine to place it clearly within the category of
agency actions subject to judicial review.
In this unusual context, there is no basis for disregarding the “strong” and “well-settled” presumption
favoring review of executive determinations. Mach
Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645, 1651 (2015);
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 241 (2010).
B. The Rescission Decision Must Be Set
Aside.
The decision to rescind DACA rested on a legal determination: DHS’s conclusion that the program exceeded the agency’s statutory authority. Because that
conclusion constituted a change in position—the government had previously stated that DACA was lawful—DHS was required to provide “a reasoned explanation for the change” in position. Encino Motorcars,
LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016). Failure
to explain a change in agency policy “‘is a reason for
holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change.’” Id. at 2126 (citation omitted).
Even if the explanation were adequate, the rescission must be set aside if the agency’s legal analysis is
wrong. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943)
(“[I]f the [agency] action is based upon a determination of law * * *, an order may not stand if the agency
has misconceived the law.”); Yale-New Haven Hosp. v.
Leavitt, 470 F.3d 71, 86 (2d Cir. 2006); Safe Air For
Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir. 2007);
Transitional Hosps. Corp. of La. v. Shalala, 222 F.3d
1019, 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

 27
The rescission decision must be vacated for both
reasons: DHS failed to provide an adequate explanation for its change in policy and it erred in determining that DACA is beyond the Executive Branch’s legal
authority.
To begin with, as Judge Bates explained in detail
in two opinions (see 18-588 Pet. App 1a-74a & 80a109a), the “scant legal reasoning” set forth by DHS
“was insufficient to satisfy the Department’s obligation to explain its departure from its prior stated view
that DACA was lawful.” Id. at 51a.
Moreover, “[t]he Department’s failure to give an
adequate explanation * * * was particularly egregious
here in light of the reliance interests involved”—because the program had been in place for five years
“and had engendered the reliance of hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries, many of whom had structured
their education, employment, and other life activities
on the assumption that they would be able to renew
their DACA benefits.” Id. at 54a. Citing Encino Motorcars, Judge Bates stated that “[t]he Supreme Court
has set aside changes in agency policy for failure to
consider reliance interests that pale in comparison to
the ones at stake here.” Id. at 54a-55a.
Even if DHS’s explanation could be deemed adequate, the Department’s legal analysis is wrong: the
DACA program falls well within the Executive
Branch’s particular legal authority with respect to immigration for several related reasons.
First, Congress has broadly authorized the Department of Homeland Security to exercise discretion,
including to “[e]stablish[] national immigration enforcement policies and priorities”—which is precisely
what the DACA program does. 6 U.S.C. § 202(5); see

 28
also 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (charging the Secretary
with the “administration and enforcement” of the immigration laws); id. § 1103(a)(3) (authority to “perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority” under the immigration laws);
H.R. Rep. No. 111-157, at 8 (2009) (“rather than
simply rounding up as many illegal immigrants as
possible, which is sometimes achieved by targeting
the easiest and least threatening among the undocumented population, DHS must ensure that the government’s huge investments in immigration enforcement are producing the maximum return in actually
making our country safer”).
Second, granting “deferred action” is a long-established administrative practice expressly recognized by
this Court and by Congress.
The government recognizes that “[a]s a practical
matter, * * * the Executive Branch lacks the resources
to remove every removable alien,” and “[f]or any alien
subject to removal, DHS officials must first ‘decide
whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.’”
U.S. Br. 4 (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S.
387, 396 (2012)). For that reason, Presidents since
1956 have implemented formal programs deferring
government action to remove individuals present in
the United States—thereby enabling over two million
otherwise-removable aliens to remain temporarily in
the country.
In the 1950s, President Eisenhower authorized
the admission of (“paroled”) almost 1,000 foreign-born
children into the United States; and he and Presi-

 29
dents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon later paroled another 600,000 Cubans.73 In the 1970s and 1980s, the
Ford and Carter Administrations granted “extended
voluntary departure,” which “temporarily suspend[ed] enforcement” of deportation, to “particular
group[s]” of immigrants.74
The Reagan Administration introduced the “Family Fairness” program, which deferred removal actions
against minor children whose parents were in the process of obtaining legal status but who did not themselves qualify for legal status.75 President George
H.W. Bush then extended the program in 1990 to
cover qualified spouses.76 And on at least four additional occasions, immigration officials have extended
deferred action to specified classes of individuals.77
See President Dwight Eisenhower, Statement Concerning the
Entry Into the United States of Adopted Foreign-Born Orphans
(Oct. 26, 1956), https://goo.gl/BkztnZ; American Immigration
Council, Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief,
1956-Present (Oct. 2014), https://goo.gl/Q87gqn.
73

Hotel & Rest. Emps. Union, Local 25 v. Smith, 846 F.2d 1499,
1510 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc); Andorra Bruno et al., CRS, Analysis of June 15, 2012 DHS Memorandum, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the
United States as Children App’x (July 13, 2012),
https://goo.gl/deiGYz.
74

Alan Nelson, Legalization and Family Fairness: An Analysis
(Oct. 21, 1987), in 64 No. 41 Interpreter Releases 1191 app. I.
75

Mem. from Gene McNary, Comm’r, INS, to Reg’l Comm’rs,
Family Fairness: Guidelines for Voluntary Departure under 8
CFR 242.5 for the Ineligible Spouses and Children of Legalized
Aliens (Feb. 2, 1990), in 67 No. 6 Interpreter Releases 153, app.
I, at 164-65 (Feb. 5, 1990).
76

See, e.g., Mem. from Paul Virtue, INS, Supplemental Guidance
on Battered Alien Self-Petitioning Process and Related Issues at
77

 30
In view of that long history, it is not surprising
that this Court itself has recognized the “regular practice” of “deferred action.” AAADC, 525 U.S. at 483-85.
Most importantly, Congress has enacted statutes
expressly recognizing that authority. As the government itself recognizes (U.S. Br. 43), Congress has on
several occasions recognized the legal authority to
grant deferred action by expressly expanding deferred
action to certain categories of individuals and by authorizing States to issue driver’s licenses to immigrants with “approved deferred action status.” 49
U.S.C. § 30301 note.
Given this long historical practice and express
congressional recognition, it is plain that the Executive Branch has broad authority to grant deferred action.
Third, permitting deferred action recipients to obtain work authorization has a similarly lengthy pedigree.
A regulation promulgated in the 1980s provides
that individuals who receive deferred action are eligible to apply for work authorization. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 274a.12(c)(14). That regulation codified the already3 (May 6, 1997), 74 No. 41 Interpreter Releases 962 app. I; U.S.
Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (USCIS), Interim Relief for
Certain Foreign Academic Students Adversely Affected by Hurricane Katrina: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 1, 7 (Nov. 25,
2005), https://tinyurl.com/y68s86cy; Mem. from Michael D.
Croning, INS, for Michael A. Pearson, INS, VTVPA Policy Memorandum #2—“T” and “U” Nonimmigrant Visas (Aug. 30, 2001),
https://tinyurl.com/yxpztydf; Mem. from Donald Neufeld,
USCIS, Guidance Regarding Surviving Spouses of Deceased U.S.
Citizens
and
Their
Children
(June
15,
2009),
https://goo.gl/SHaCVZ.

 31
existing practice and procedure of granting employment authorization to such individuals. See Proposed
Rules for Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens, 44 Fed. Reg. 43,480 (July 25, 1979). And in the
almost forty years since, Congress has declined to
limit this practice in any way.
To the contrary, in the face of a challenge to the
Attorney General’s authority to grant work authorizations to individuals who have been granted deferred
action (see Employment Authorization, 51 Fed. Reg.
39,385 (Oct. 28, 1986)), Congress ratified the Attorney
General’s authority, enacting a law prohibiting employers from hiring unauthorized aliens, but expressly
excluded from that category individuals “authorized
to be so employed by * * * the Attorney General.” 8
U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3).
In sum, the broad discretionary authority conferred on the Executive Branch in this immigration
context, the long history of administrative grants of
both deferred action and work authorization, and
Congress’s express recognition of that practice establish that DACA falls within the legal authority available to the Executive Branch.
CONCLUSION
The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit and the District Court for the District of

 32
Columbia, and orders of the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted.
ANDREW J. PINCUS
Counsel of Record
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 263-3000
apincus@mayerbrown.com
KAREN W. LIN
Mayer Brown LLP
1221 Avenue of the
Americas
New York, NY 10020
(212) 506-2500
Counsel for Amici Curiae

OCTOBER 2019

 1a
APPENDIX A
LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

Business Associations
1.

American Hotel & Lodging Association

2.

BSA   The Software Alliance

3.

Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America

4.

HR Policy Association

5.

Information Technology Industry
Council

6.

National Association of Manufacturers

7.

National Association of State Latino
Chambers of Commerce

8.

National Retail Federation

9.

North Texas Commission

10.

Philadelphia Area Cooperative Alliance

 2a

11.

Retail Industry Leaders Association

12.

Semiconductor Industry Association

13.

Software and Information Industry
Association

14.

Sustainable Business Network of
Greater Philadelphia

15.

Tech:NYC

16.

TechNet

17.

Texas Association of Business

18.

Vail Valley Partnership

 3a

Individual Companies
1.

A Medium Corporation

2.

Adobe Systems Incorporated

3.

Affirm, Inc.

4.

Airbnb, Inc.

5.

Akamai Technologies, Inc.

6.

Amazon.com, Inc.

7.

Ampush LLC

8.

Asana, Inc.

9.

Aspen Skiing Company, LLC

10.

Atlassian Corp. Plc

11.

Autodesk, Inc.

12.

Azavea Inc.

13.

Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc.

14.

Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP

 4a

15.

Best Buy, Inc.

16.

Box, Inc.

17.

Braze, Inc.

18.

Brightcove Inc.

19.

CareZone Inc.

20.

Checkr, Inc.

21.

Chegg, Inc.

22.

Chobani, LLC

23.

Cisco Systems Inc.

24.

Citrix Systems, Inc.

25.

Civis Analytics, Inc.

26.

Cloudera, Inc.

27.

Cloudflare, Inc.

28.

Codecademy

29.

Color Genomics, Inc.

 5a

30.

Columbia Group LLP

31.

Cummins Inc.

32.

DoorDash

33.

Driscoll's

34.

Dropbox, Inc.

35.

eBay Inc.

36.

Ernst & Young LLP

37.

Exelon Corp.

38.

Facebook, Inc.

39.

Fastly, Inc.

40.

Foossa

41.

Foursquare Labs, Inc.

42.

Gap Inc.

43.

General Assembly Space, Inc. DBA
General Assembly

 6a

44.

Golden Door Scholars

45.

Google LLC

46.

Graham Holdings Company

47.

Greenough Consulting Group

48.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

49.

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.

50.

HMS Holdings Corp.

51.

Host Hotels and Resorts, Inc.

52.

HP Inc.

53.

IBC Bank

54.

IBM Corporation

55.

IKEA North American Services, LLC

56.

Imgur, Inc.

57.

Indiegogo, Inc.

58.

Intel Corporation

 7a

59.

JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker

60.

Kickstarter, PBC

61.

Knotel

62.

Lam Research Corporation

63.

Levi Strauss & Co.

64.

Linden Research, Inc. d/b/a Linden Lab

65.

Lydecker Diaz

66.

Lyft, Inc.

67.

Mapbox

68.

Marriott International, Inc.

69.

Medidata Solutions, Inc.

70.

Molecule Software, Inc.

71.

MongoDB, Inc.

72.

MPOWERD Inc.

73.

Netflix, Inc.

 8a

74.

NETGEAR, Inc.

75.

NewsCred, Inc.

76.

Niskanen Center

77.

Okta, Inc.

78.

OpenAI, LLC

79.

Patreon, Inc.

80.

PayPal Holdings, Inc.

81.

Pinterest, Inc.

82.

Planet Labs Inc.

83.

Postmates

84.

RealNetworks, Inc.

85.

Red Ventures

86.

Rippling

87.

Salesforce.com, Inc.

88.

Scopely, Inc.

 9a

89.

ServiceNow

90.

Shutterstock, Inc.

91.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

92.

Spokeo, Inc.

93.

SpotHero, Inc.

94.

Spotify USA Inc.

95.

Square, Inc.

96.

Squarespace, Inc.

97.

Starbucks Coffee Company

98.

Strava, Inc.

99.

SurveyMonkey Inc.

100. Tampa Bay Tech
101. Target
102. TaskRabbit, Inc.
103. Tesla, Inc.

 10a

104. The Nielsen Company
105. Thumbtack, Inc.
106. TNTP, Inc.
107. TPG Capital
108. TransferWise Inc.
109. TripAdvisor LLC
110. Turner Morris, Inc.
111. Turo Inc.
112. Twitter Inc.
113. Uber Technologies, Inc.
114. Univision Communications Inc.
115. Upwork Inc.
116. Verizon Communications Inc.
117. Via Transportation, Inc.
118. Western Union

 11a

119. Work & Co.
120. Workday, Inc.
121. Y Combinator Management, LLC
122. Year Up
123. Yelp Inc.
124. Zendesk, Inc.
125. ZenPayroll, Inc. d/b/a Gusto