WASHINGTON (CN) — A deportation fight at the Supreme Court on Tuesday left some justices wondering if they had traveled back in time to a previously resolved dispute.
“This is now Groundhog Day from Guerrero,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said referring to the high court’s 2020 ruling in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.
Similar to Guerrero, the question before the justices is whether federal courts can interfere in a case decided by an immigration judge. The government lost its fight in 2020, leaving some justices pondering why it would bring similar arguments before the high court again.
“It strikes me that everything that you just said is pretty much a relitigation of the issue that was raised in Guerrero, that the government came in, basically [and] made the same argument,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
Kagan said the court found that if there was a legal standard involved, then federal courts had jurisdiction to review immigration judges’ rulings. Similar to Guerrero, Kagan said the analysis needed to distinguish when certain cases are and are not reviewable by federal courts was complex and ultimately “not worth the candle.”
“If there's a legal standard at issue, if the conclusion that the court comes to is, in the end do these set of facts as found, as weighed, satisfy this legal standard, then the better course is just to call it a day and say it's reviewable and not have to go any further,” the Barack Obama appointee said.
The government argued that immigration judges have broad discretion in these cases, often requiring factual judgments that the federal courts should not have review over. Justice Neil Gorsuch said lower court determinations are commonly found to be the result of a legal error — the determination that gives federal courts jurisdiction in these cases.
“Don't we hold all the time, courts of appeals, the lower court, abused its discretion as a matter of law when it reaches a wrong judgment,” the Donald Trump appointee said. “Isn't that exactly what we say?”
A Pennsylvania man claims an immigration judge made such an error in denying his deportation cancellation request. Situ Wilkinson says his deportation would cause an exceptional hardship for his son.
Wilkinson fled to the United States in 2003 after he was threatened and beaten at gunpoint by police in his home in Trinidad and Tobago. He entered the country on a tourist visa and spent decades establishing his life in Pennsylvania. This included the birth of his son in 2013.
His plans to stay in the U.S. came to a screeching halt in 2019 when he was arrested after the police found drugs in a house he was helping to repair. Wilkinson neither owned nor lived at the property and the charges were ultimately withdrawn. However, immigration officials took the opportunity to detain Wilkinson when he appeared at the state courthouse to contest the charges.
Citing his overstayed visa, the Department of Homeland Security moved to deport Wilkinson. Wilkinson fought the order, claiming it should be canceled because his deportation would cause exceptional and extremely usual hardship for his then-7-year-old son, who has serious medical conditions.
An immigration judge found that Wilkinson met three out of the four qualifications to cancel his removal. Wilkinson lived in the U.S. for over 10 years, had good moral character, and had no criminal record. However, the judge said his emotional and personal support for his son was not enough to cause extreme hardship should Wilkinson be removed from the country. The judge denied Wilkinson’s application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Wilkinson brought his fight to the federal circuit, but an appeals court said it lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. At the Supreme Court, Wilkinson said the Third Circuit should have been able to review his appeal because it concerned an issue of law.
“Non-citizens who have lived here for 10 years, have good moral character and a clean record, can seek immigration relief if their removal will cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. family member,” Jamie Santos, an attorney with Goodwin Procter representing Wilkinson, said. “If the agency concludes that the facts don't satisfy that standard, the question here is whether courts have the power to review that decision. They do.”
The government argued the immigration judge’s decision should be preserved under agency discretion.
“We think that if you apply the standard tools of statutory interpretation, that's text, history, and precedent … if you apply those tools, you'll figure out that exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, that is a factual determination and that's an exercise of agency discretion,” Colleen Sinzdak, assistant to the solicitor general at the Department of Justice said. “That is not a legal conclusion.”
Justice Samuel Alito expressed some openness to the government’s argument. The George W. Bush appointee said the reading of Guerrero by some of his colleagues would make every case reviewable by federal courts.
“Anybody who has litigated cases or has seen what willful judges can do knows that if you allow that little toe in the door, an awful lot can be done with it,” Alito said. “That might be right or wrong. Judges love judicial review. Congress was less enamored of it when it enacted this statute.”
Although the case before the high court concerned a serious decision for Wilkinson, the 90-minute oral argument session was unusually raucous, with several bouts of laughter on and off the bench.
Alito unwittingly made one of the most memorable quips with a hypothetical attempting to convey an individual suffering an unusual hardship.
“Let's say I'm complaining about my workplace, it's cold, it's set at 63 degrees, there isn't any coffee machine, the boss is unfriendly, all my co-workers are obnoxious,” Alito said.
Alito responded to laughter in the often chilly courtroom with the stipulation “any resemblance to any living character is purely accidental.”
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
