October Term 2019 · Docket 18-725
Does a crime make a resident inadmissible for the stop-time rule?
The dispute centers on whether a criminal offense renders a lawful permanent resident inadmissible under the stop-time rule.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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
Barton's counsel argued the question is what an offense means for the stop-time rule.
Barr's counsel argued the statutory text alone is enough to resolve the case.
Justice Alito questioned whether inadmissibility is a status in ordinary speech.
Justice Sotomayor noted some are found inadmissible not on the basis of a crime.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-53
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the definition of inadmissibility for the stop-time rule. the side that brought the case Barton argues the term has a specific meaning. the opposing side Barr argues the statutory text controls the outcome.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 31-33
What each side wants
Barton wants the Court to define inadmissibility narrowly for the stop-time rule.
Barr wants the Court to apply the statutory text broadly to the stop-time rule.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
What each side says
Barton argues the word inadmissible has a consistent meaning across the statute.
Barr argues the statutory text alone resolves the case regarding Section 1182(a)(2).
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked when an official fits the status of leaving the country for more than 180 days.
Justice Alito asked why inadmissibility cannot be assessed in a removal proceeding for a resident who has not left the country.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-53
Why it matters
The outcome defines how courts calculate time for lawful permanent residents. It clarifies the legal status of criminal offenses in removal proceedings. It sets a standard for applying the stop-time rule to residents.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
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 33-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 55-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-53 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-53
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 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 43-29 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 43-29
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.