Alito, writing for the majority, said the decision made it more difficult for illegal immigrants facing deportation to challenge their removal based on incomplete notice. The ruling upheld a two-step notification system for deporting illegal immigrants, effectively preventing them from rescinding their removal order. The law requires written notice with time and place for proceedings, and failure to attend results in removal in absentia. The decision in the case of Campos-Chaves v. Garland came after the government provided a second notice with the necessary information, leading to petitions for review in federal court. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the requirements for notification in deportation proceedings, with Justice Gorsuch highlighting the importance of the case given the high number of in absentia removals in immigration proceedings.
On the other hand, government attorneys argued that two separate forms should be deemed valid for ordering the removal of an illegal immigrant in absentia. They sought to differentiate this case from the Niz-Chavez case, arguing that a second notice containing the time and place of proceedings should suffice to meet the statutory notification requirement.
Justice Gorsuch, who dissented in the June 14 decision, challenged the government’s argument, stating that it essentially allows the government to omit information it deems “inconvenient,” like the hearing date, and take a “trust us” approach with the law.
Justice Alito, who authored the June 14 opinion, argued that the plain language of the statute should be interpreted to allow an initial notification without a time and place for the hearing, as long as subsequent notifications provide this information. He cited a case where a plaintiff received follow-up notifications specifying the time and date of the hearing and attended numerous hearings.
The government attorney concluded by arguing that the purpose of the provision was to create a defense based on “lack of notice,” which should not apply to individuals who ultimately received all the required information about their deportation proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s majority decision, issued on June 14, sided with the government’s interpretation of the statute, allowing the two-step notification process to continue.
Justice Alito wrote for the majority, stating that it is irrelevant if the government did not provide all the relevant details in the first notice, as long as they were provided in the second notice. The majority opinion stated that the alien must prove that the required information was not provided in order to have the removal order rescinded.
Justice Ketanji Jackson wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress intended to provide a fair opportunity to challenge in absentia removal orders. She criticized the majority for approving the government’s noncompliance with the statute and disrupting the framework Congress had established for in absentia removal proceedings.
