October Term 2009 · Docket 08-911

Does the statute bar courts from reviewing immigration reopen denials?

The dispute centers on whether federal courts can review denials of motions to reopen immigration cases.

Official caption
Kucana v. Holder
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Leiter argued Congress enacted the law to reduce federal court burdens.

    Ms. Saharsky argued the statute does not bar review of reopen denials.

    Mr. Schoenfield argued Congress limited review only to specific subchapter authorities.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of judicial review over immigration decisions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 10, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants a court to review the denial of his motion to reopen.

The government wants to block court review of the denial.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the statute does not bar review of reopen denials.

The government argues the statute strictly limits review of discretionary decisions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked which statutory provision controls the regulation's validity.

Justice Kennedy asked if the statute implies no discretion absent the regulation.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between executive discretion and judicial oversight in immigration law.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON