After reading the complete case and considering the arguments presented, I agree with the Court's ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is reviewable, and that its decision is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court's decision is based on valid legal reasoning and aligns with the purpose and principles of the APA. One of the main arguments put forth by the government in defense of its decision to end DACA was that it was a lawful wind-down of a discretionary policy. The government claimed that DACA was implemented without proper legal authority and that the decision to end it was justified due to its dubious legal status [1]. However, the Court found that the government's reasoning was flawed and that the decision to end DACA was not adequately justified. The Court's ruling is consistent with the APA, which requires agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for their actions and to consider relevant factors in their decision-making process. In this case, the Court found that the government failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its decision to end DACA and did not adequately consider the impact of its decision on the individuals who relied on the program. Additionally, the Court's decision reflects the principle of administrative law that agencies must follow proper procedures when making decisions that affect the rights of individuals. The governm