Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
 | |
| Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr | |
| Term: 2019 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argument: December 9, 2019 Decided: March 23, 2020 | |
| Outcome | |
| Vacated and remanded | |
| Vote | |
| 7-2 | |
| Majority | |
| Stephen Breyer • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Dissenting | |
| Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito | |
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the authority of courts to review agency decisions in deportation cases involving people convicted of crimes. The court ruled 7-2 that lower courts may review whether immigration agencies properly applied relevant laws to a given set of facts in such cases. In 2005, Congress limited judicial review in those cases to questions of law and the court concluded that whether courts should extend the time limit for immigrants to challenge their removal from the United States fell within the definition of a question of law.[1][2][3]
The court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2019, during its October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The case was consolidated with Ovalles v. Barr.[4]
Review the lower court's opinion here for Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and here for Ovalles v. Barr.
Why it matters: The decision gave people convicted of crimes more opportunities to challenge agency decisions to deport them by allowing courts to decide whether to reopen those deportation cases beyond the normal 90-day time limit.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- March 23, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the 5th Circuit's ruling. The court reversed the 5th Circuit's earlier decision and told it to conduct further hearings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
- December 9, 2019: Oral argument
- June 24, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- January 29, 2019: Ruben Ovalles, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- December 10, 2018: Pedro Guerrero-Lasprilla, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- October 31, 2018: The 5th Circuit dismissed Ovalles' case in Ovalles v. Barr.
- September 12, 2018: The 5th Circuit dismissed Guerrero's case in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.
Background
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr as consolidated cases. In consolidated cases, the court decides cases that present the same questions at the same time. The court granted the writ of certiorari in Ovalles v. Barr limited to the question of whether the law prohibited courts from reviewing agency decisions about certain deportation appeals.[8]
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla, a native and citizen of Colombia, entered the United States in 1986 as a lawful permanent resident. In 1988, Guerrero-Lasprilla was convicted in federal district court for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. In 1998, the United States opened removal proceedings against Guerrero-Lasprilla, who was eventually deported.[5]
In 2016, Guerrero-Lasprilla, then living in Colombia, filed a motion to reopen his deportation proceedings with an immigration judge. The immigration judge denied Guerrero-Lasprilla's request on the grounds that it was too late. The judge ruled Guerrero-Lasprilla should have filed his motion to reopen in 2014.[5]
Guerrero-Lasprilla appealed the immigration judge's ruling with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On March 29, 2017, the BIA denied his appeal. Guerrero-Lasprilla then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.[5]
Ovalles v. Barr
Ruben Ovalles, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 1985 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2003, the United States began removal proceedings against Ovalles based on a conviction for attempted drug possession earlier that year. In 2004, he was deported as an aggravated felon.[9]
In 2007, Ovalles filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA denied the motion. On appeal, the 5th Circuit upheld the BIA's motion. In 2016, Ovalles filed a second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA and the 5th Circuit again denied Ovalles' petition.[9]
Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
On December 10, 2018, Guerrero-Lasprilla filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 29, 2019, Ovalles filed a petition. Both petitions argued that "the question presented has squarely divided the Fifth and Fourth Circuit from the Ninth Circuit."[5][9] The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases on June 24, 2019.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:
| Questions presented: (1) Is a request for equitable tolling, as it applies to statutory motions to reopen, judicially reviewable as a "question of law?"[6]
|
Oral argument
The court heard oral argument in the case on December 9, 2019.
Audio
- Audio of the oral argument:[10]
Transcript
- Transcript of the oral argument:[11]
Outcome
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the 5th Circuit's ruling with a 7-2 vote in favor of Guerrero-Lasprilla and Ovalles.
Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion joined, in part, by Justice Samuel Alito.[1]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Seven of the justices held that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals should have reviewed whether the Board of Immigration Appeals correctly applied the relevant legal standard. Congress placed limits on judicial review of agency decisions to deport people who have committed certain crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those limits did not apply to these cases.[1]
In his opinion, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]
| “ | The question that these two consolidated cases present is whether the phrase “questions of law” in the Provision includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts. We believe that it does.[12] | ” |
Since the justices held that questions of law include questions of how the law applies to certain facts, they ruled that courts could review the issues involved in these consolidated cases.[1]
Dissenting opinion
Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined in part by Justice Alito.[1]
In his dissent, Thomas wrote:[1]
| “ | ... the majority effectively nullifies a jurisdiction-stripping statute, expanding the scope of judicial review well past the boundaries set by Congress. Because this arrogation of authority flouts both the text and structure of the statute, I respectfully dissent.[12] | ” |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Commentary about the case
Pre-decision commentary
"Lurking in the background of this case are formidable policy questions that are largely ignored by the parties," according to University of Oklahoma law professor Kit Johnson, writing for SCOTUSblog.[3] She discussed the potential for courts of appeals to become overwhelmed reviewing immigration cases and for such reviews to create confusion around deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals.[3]
According to Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, a reporter for Bloomberg Law, the justices "seemed likely after oral argument Dec. 9 to rule in favor of immigrants seeking to get federal courts to take a second look at their deportations."[13] She added that the "outcome of the case could have implications for those deported years, or even decades ago."[13]
Post-decision commentary
Kit Johnson argued in a post for SCOTUSblog that the Supreme Court's decision "does not change the fact that federal circuit courts still cannot review factual questions raised by noncitizens convicted of certain crimes who challenge their removal orders."[14] Johnson added that it is unknown how many cases fall within the category of cases the court decided were open to judicial review.[14] Kevin Daley, U.S. Supreme Court reporter for the Washington Free Beacon, reported that the decision "might have opened the door for thousands of aliens, many removed from the U.S. years ago, to request review of their deportation orders" according to a former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official.[15]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Ovalles v. Barr (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Ovalles v. Barr
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr," March 23, 2020
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "8 U.S. Code § 1252.Judicial review of orders of removal," accessed April 23, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 SCOTUSblog, "Argument preview: Justices to consider limits on appeals courts’ authority to review decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals," December 2, 2019
- ↑ Ovalles v. Barr also came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The docket number is 18-1015.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr: Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed June 27, 2019
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr: Questions presented," accessed June 27, 2019
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Ovalles v. Barr: Questions presented," accessed June 27, 2019
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order list," June 24, 2019
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Ovalles v. Barr: Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed June 27, 2019
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr," argued December 9, 2019
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr Transcript of Oral Argument," argued December 9, 2019
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Bloomberg Law, "Justices Lean Toward Immigrants Over Deportation Review," December 9, 2019
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Court sides with immigrants on availability of judicial review of removal orders," March 23, 2020
- ↑ Washington Free Beacon, "Supreme Court Will Allow Review of Decades-Old Deportations," March 27, 2020
