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
Petitioners were represented by Paul W. Hughes, Esq., and the respondent was represented by Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General.
Petitioners argue that Section (2)(D) provides for review of questions of law decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals and that courts may review whether the Board identified the proper legal standard.
According to Mr. Liu, the government contends that Congress intended to give criminal aliens no judicial review.
According to Mr. Liu, the government further states that since 1996 the goal has been to expedite the removal of criminal aliens.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, the central legal issue is whether “questions of law” under Section (2)(D) are reviewable by the courts.
Justices questioned whether the statute’s reference to “questions of law” covers only pure questions of law or also mixed questions.
What each side argues
Petitioners
According to Petitioners, petitioners assert that courts may review whether the Board identified the proper legal standard.
Respondent
According to Mr. Liu, the respondent argues that Congress intended to give criminal aliens no judicial review.
According to Mr. Liu, the respondent further argues that since 1996 Congress has aimed to expedite the removal of criminal aliens.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioners were represented by Paul W. Hughes, Esq.; the respondent was represented by Frederick Liu.
Justice Alito asked whether the government’s theory permits courts to review not only whether the Board articulated the right theory but also whether it actually used the right theory.
Justice Gorsuch asked what the case teaches about the question before the Court.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan commented on the breadth of Justice Gorsuch’s question.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh noted that the statute does not specifically refer to mixed questions and suggested it refers to pure questions of law.
Justice Sotomayor asked the parties to succinctly state the questions of law in the two cases.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether the government’s position is that only pure questions of law are reviewable or also egregious applications that rise to questions of law.
Justice Breyer stated that the text says “questions of law” and that statutes using those words clearly mean both.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor reiterated the presumption in favor of judicial review.
Justice Sotomayor asked if that presumption “begs the question.”
Justice Kagan asked whether the presumption is only about congressional intent and noted that Congress wanted to cut off review for criminal aliens.
Justice Breyer asked the parties what they think about the presumption.
- [1] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 3
- [2] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 7
- [3] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 20
- [4] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 23
- [5] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 26
- [6] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 29
- [7] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 35
- [8] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 46
- [9] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 50
- [10] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 51
- [11] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 52
- [12] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 53
- [13] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdf, p. 54
- [14] bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.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.
- bedd8ed15ebe5f0fd68c-r1-9e0320f4515ed0c5.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.