Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court weighs whether later hearing notices can cure defective immigration 'notice to appear'
Summary
At oral argument in Campos Chavez v. Garland, justices probed whether a later "notice of hearing" (paragraph 2) can supply missing time-and-place information when the initial "notice to appear" (paragraph 1) omitted it, testing the limits of Pereira and Niz‑Chavez and the practical consequences for thousands of in absentia removal orders.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in consolidated cases challenging whether the government may rely on a later “notice of hearing” to support removal of a noncitizen who missed a hearing when the original “notice to appear” listed the date and place as “to be determined.”
Mister McLeod, arguing for the United States, told the justices that both forms of statutory notice created by Congress can independently support an in absentia removal, and warned that the Ninth Circuit’s contrary rule "defies text, context, and common sense" and could unsettle “hundreds of thousands of in absentia orders” entered over nearly three decades.
The core dispute centers on how to read 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (the INA notice provisions) and two decisions of this Court: Pereira and Niz‑Chavez. McLeod urged the Court to treat Pereira as a…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat