Matheson v. Miami-Dade County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an agency “must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted” and not on post hoc rationalizations
• finding that the “President’s critical statements about Latinos,” which were “remote in time and made in unrelated contexts . . . do not qualify as ‘contemporary statements’ probative of the decision at issue.”
• explaining that an agency “must consider the ‘alternative[s]’ that are ‘within the ambit of the existing [policy],’” explain why it did not choose those alternatives, and that “serious reliance interests . . . must be taken into account”
• rejecting an agency’s attempt to rely in court on “impermissible post hoc rationalizations” to defend the legality of its action
• reiterating this axiom and finding that the Department of Homeland Security had acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion by rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program
• going on to note that rebutting the presumption requires “clear and convincing evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).