Breaking: In A Biden-Era "Self-Removal" Case, A Solid Majority Of The Supremes Sees "More Permissive" Intentions, Where Removal / Asylum / Self-Deportation Are Concerned.

The tides have already turned, dear readers. Tangerine 2.0, and Rubio and Noem. . . should take note. [But they won't -- so they'll reap the whirlwind, shortly.]

This was a solid majoity decision (only the predictable, myopic Thomas / Alito pair are fundamentally objecting to the overall "equitable" outcome, here), holding that a use of a hyper-technical, mistaken "deadline" quip / procedure will not defeat a federal court's right / obligation to review whether the government is honoring the rights enshrined in our statutes, rules and yes. . . Constitution:

. . .[See INS] §§1252(a)(1), (b)(9). . . . [P]retty plainly, that language permits a court to review all terms in a final order of removal without anything like the qualification the government imagines. Our dissenting colleagues see things differently. In their view, this Court’s decision in Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U. S. 573 (2020), requires us to adopt the government’s jurisdictional theory. See post, at 8–10 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); post, at 2 (opinion of BARRETT, J.). But, if anything, that case supports our conclusion. Nasrallah described a “final order of removal” subject to judicial review as a final order “‘concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.’” 590 U. S., at 581. And (again) that is exactly what we have here: a final order specifying that the government may remove Mr. Monsalvo if he fails to depart voluntarily within 60 days, and a petition asking the courts to settle a dispute over what that order means. . . .

Tellingly, too, if Congress meant to depart from settled immigration practice when it adopted the voluntary-departure deadline in 1996, the government itself seems not to have noticed. After Congress enacted IIRIRA, the government promulgated a new rule to enforce §1229c(b)(2)’s terms. See 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 10372 (1997). Tracking the statute, that rule allows an immigration judge to grant a voluntary-departure period of up to “60 days.” 8 CFR §240.26(e) (1999). And under the government’s own regulations, remember, regulatory deadlines defined in terms of days do not expire on weekends or legal holidays. §1001.1(h) (2021). Nowhere does the government’s rule enforcing §1229c(b)(2) suggest that it is exempt from these regulations. Perhaps for this reason, the immigration judge in Mr. Monsalvo’s own case understood his voluntary departure deadline to extend past a weekend to a Monday. See supra, at 3.

Perhaps for this reason, as well, many other immigration judges have done the same in other cases. See Brief for American Immigration Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae 4 (collecting examples). . . .

There are silver linings, even on this gray day -- and Trump is about to have his ears trimmed, in the coming weeks -- by a majority of right thinking US Supreme Court Justices (probably seven of them!). . . particularly on human rights, and due process dimensions.

नमस्ते