This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether the 1996 reinstatement provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies only prospectively.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner argues that Congress intended the 1996 reinstatement provision to apply only prospectively.
According to Mr. Gossett, petitioner further argues that had an individual left the United States in 1996, the IIRIRA would render them inadmissible for five years, preventing readmission.
Justice Breyer asked whether the relevant period could be ten to twenty years.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a different result might have occurred if a marriage had taken place before a certain date.
Justice Breyer later asked whether an illegal entrant married to an American could ever remain in the country.
Justice Scalia asked a follow‑up question about the issue.
- [1] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 3
- [2] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, pp. 20–21
- [3] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 21
- [4] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 22
- [5] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 23
- [6] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 38
- [7] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 52
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, congress intended the 1996 reinstatement provision to apply only prospectively.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of Fernandez‑Vargas v. Gonzales.
Petitioner, represented by Mr. Gossett, argued that the reinstatement provision should apply only prospectively.
According to Mr. Gossett, petitioner also contended that a person who left the United States in 1996 would be barred from readmission for five years under IIRIRA.
Justices Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia posed questions about the length of the applicable period and the possibility of remaining in the country after marriage to a U.S. citizen.
The respondent was represented by Sri Srinivasan.
The oral argument concluded with the Court noting that the case was submitted.
- [1] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 3
- [2] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 3
- [3] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, pp. 20–21
- [4] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 21
- [5] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 22
- [6] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 23
- [7] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 38
- [8] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 52
- [9] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 29
- [10] caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdf, p. 55
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- caddd39fc5b231eb9217-r1-a8fed8dde85e5d7b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.