The United States Supreme Court delivered a contentious 5-4 verdict in an immigration-related case on Tuesday, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch aligning with the Court's liberal justices. The case centered on a federal regulation that permits certain noncitizens deemed to possess “good moral character” to voluntarily depart the U.S. within 60 days, thereby avoiding formal removal proceedings. Controversy arose when one such deadline lapsed on a weekend, prompting the question of whether the deadline should carry over to the following business day.
Justice Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, upheld a tradition rooted in administrative practices dating back to the 1950s. He noted that immigration regulations historically extended deadlines that fell on weekends or legal holidays to the next working day. This perspective is grounded in the principle that when Congress enacts new legislation against a backdrop of established administrative interpretation, the judiciary typically assumes the new law is intended to be harmonious with existing practices.
The decision, which also included Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, overturned prior judgments by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals, who had rejected the deadline extension. The case involved Monsalvo Velázquez, a Colorado resident ordered to leave the U.S. in 2019, who missed the voluntary departure deadline because it occurred over a weekend.
Justice Samuel Alito, penning the dissent, cautioned that this decision could lead to uncertainty in immigration law enforcement. He highlighted the potential for an influx of cases involving late filings due to the extension of deadlines, and the difficulty courts might face in drawing a line when leniency is no longer feasible.
Significantly, the Court's decision comes at a time when immigration law is under intense scrutiny. In the near future, the Court is slated to consider arguments over the termination of birthright citizenship, a critical and highly contentious issue. This ruling could offer insights into the judicial approaches of key justices toward immigration enforcement, especially in cases with constitutional bearings.
While the case of Velázquez dealt with a procedural detail, its impact is far-reaching, potentially influencing thousands of similar cases and shedding light on judicial philosophies regarding statutory interpretation. Critics, particularly from conservative circles, view the extension of deadlines based on administrative practices as opening the floodgates to potential judicial activism in immigration enforcement. Conversely, proponents argue that the ruling simply aligns the Court with standard government regulatory practices, citing the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act as supporting this interpretation.
The ruling, seemingly narrow in scope, carries significant implications. It not only highlights ideological divides within the Supreme Court but also poses questions about future decisions on more consequential immigration matters as the Court grapples with challenges to executive immigration policies.