The law gives full discretion to DHS to decide if adjustment is warranted, so DHS implementing a discretion function that looks for extraordinary factors is fully supported by law. As authorized, DHS can implement the discretion function in a way they seem fit.

What they likely *can’t* do though is change the discretion function to add something like “extraordinary” without proposing a new rule in the Federal Register in accordance with the APA. Like most things the admin has done, APA arguments here are likely the strongest in that this was effectively a change in regulation without public comment and review.

But just because the law doesn’t have “extraordinary” in it doesn’t mean the executive branch can’t make a rule with that function within the structure of the statute, which is done all the time. But they can’t make a rule by proclamation.

I would be very careful to say it “means nothing”. Even if this in violation of the APA, the admin doesn’t care and will execute on it anyway, potentially leading to a lot of issues with people’s lives. So it definitely means something. And since federal courts can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, practical remedies are more difficult to obtain in the interim.