Monday, March 2, 2020
Nasrallah v. Barr raises the question of judicial review of fact findings underlying a removal order. Jennifer Chacon previewed the case for SCOTUSBlog. Lachanda Reid and Gabriela Markolovic have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Here is the text of the oral argument.
The Court also heard argument in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, in which the Court will decide whether limitations on judicial review of expedited removal orders violate the Constitution’s suspension clause. Kari Hong had the SCOTUSBlog's argument preview. Cornell’s preview comes from Basem Besada and Grant Shillington. Here is the text to the argument.
UPDATE (March 3, 6:15 EST): Jennifer Chacon recaps the argument in Nasrallah v. Barr for for SCOTUSBlog. The Justices seemed to grapple with the details of the judicial review provisions of the immigration statute. Her bottom line: "Today’s argument seemed to go better for Nasrallah than for the government."
"It appears that four justices—Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—are not comfortable with a scheme that has no mechanism for courts to correct even the most egregious of mistakes. Two justices—Alito and Kavanaugh—have strong concerns over whether Thuraissigiam’s request for a hearing is a departure from how habeas petitions have been used. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who did not ask any questions, may well determine the outcome, as he has in other immigration cases."