October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1376
Does the 1996 reinstatement provision apply to aliens already in the country?
The dispute centers on whether a 1996 immigration law applies to aliens who reentered before the statute took effect.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Srinivasan argued the statute streamlines removal of reentered aliens.
He stated Congress did not intend to exempt current illegal residents.
Mr. Gossett argued the statute applies only prospectively.
He cited ordinary tools of statutory construction to support his view.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of a 1996 immigration statute. The core issue is whether the law applies to aliens already in the country. the side that brought the case argues the law applies only to future reentries. the opposing side argues the law applies to all current removals. The Court must interpret the statute's effective date.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 22, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to limit the statute to future reentries.
the opposing side wants the Court to apply the statute to current removals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute applies only prospectively to new reentries.
the opposing side argues the statute applies to all future removal proceedings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the statute applies prospectively to all future removals.
Justice Ginsburg asked if any courts accepted the argument that the statute is clear.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
Why it matters
This case defines the reach of immigration removal statutes. It determines which aliens face expedited removal. It clarifies the effective date of federal laws. It impacts the rights of non-citizens in the country. It shapes future legislative drafting for immigration policy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-54 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 11-54 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 11-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.