In a recent government meeting, significant discussions centered around jurisdictional issues related to immigration law, particularly concerning the reviewability of motions to reopen and reconsider removal orders. The dialogue highlighted a critical question raised by Justice Thomas regarding whether the government had previously addressed jurisdictional points in the 10th Circuit, to which it had not, raising concerns about the implications of this oversight.

Legal representatives argued that accepting the government's stance on jurisdiction could lead to a substantial shift in immigration law, potentially rendering reopening and reconsideration decisions unreviewable. This perspective aligns with previous rulings, such as in Reyes Mata and Kucana v. Holder, which established that these motions possess an independent jurisdictional basis.

The discussion also touched on the potential consequences of the government's position, suggesting that it could create confusion in the courts of appeals. Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about collateral consequences stemming from erroneous government decisions regarding reopening petitions, which could lead to unreviewable outcomes affecting individuals' immigration status.

The representatives emphasized that motions to reopen often arise years after final removal orders and involve changed circumstances that warrant judicial review. They argued that the government's assertion that such cases are one-off situations does not adequately reflect the reality of immigration proceedings, where individuals frequently seek relief based on evolving factual circumstances.

Overall, the meeting underscored the complexities of jurisdiction in immigration law and the potential ramifications of the government's current position, which could significantly impact the rights of individuals seeking to challenge removal orders.