2024 Term of Court:
Federal immigration law allows immigrants who are subject to an executive “order of removal” from the United States to appeal that order to a federal Court of Appeals, but the same law requires that they do so (if they want) “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1). In Riley v. Bondi, US Sup. Ct. Slip Opinion of June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 1) that an “Order of Removal” specifying removal to a country allegedly in violation of the international Convention Against Torture (to which the United States is a party), was nevertheless “final” with respect to the 30 day time limit, potentially foreclosing a later appeal with respect to a pending “Torture” issue, and 2) that the time limit was not “jurisdictional,” allowing the Court of Appeals to consider a late appeal if the government so agreed, or possibly on some equitable ground that might justify a late appeal. The vote on the Court was unanimous with respect to the “jurisdictional” issue, but 5-4, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Gorsuch dissenting, on the issue of what the word “final” means in 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1).
Comment: The proper understanding of the word “final” as an operator in any law depends entirely on the legal context in which the word is to work. Here, the majority’s sense of “final” is utterly absurd in the context of a time limit for a one-time, single appeal, like that authorized by 8 U.S.C. §1252.
Dan D. Rhea
RECENT RULINGS 