Court rules against government on technical question of notice requirement in immigration law

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a 6-3 opinion in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, reversing a lower courts decision that had limited access to cancellation of removal, an important form of relief for noncitizens in deportation proceedings.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, adopting a rigid interpretation of a federal statute that requires the government to serve a notice to appear in order to trigger the stop-time rule. That rule can foreclose access to immigration relief by preventing noncitizens from accruing the time required for eligibility. According to the majority, in order to trigger the stop-time rule, the government must issue a single immigration charging document with various pieces of required information, including the date and time of the hearing. The majority rejected the governments contention that a series of documents could together comprise the required notice, noting that the plain language of the law, as well as its structure and history, indicate a single document is required.

The voting line-up was unusual. Gorsuchs majority opinion was joined by the courts three liberals Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan as well as two other conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Check back soon for in-depth analysis of the opinion.