October Term 2019 · Docket 18-776
Can courts review mixed law and fact immigration decisions?
the sides that brought the case seek review of mixed questions. The government limits review to pure legal errors.
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
Mr. Hughes argued that review must be substantive.
Mr. Liu argued that the text excludes mixed questions.
Justice Alito questioned the practical application of the legal standard.
Justice Sotomayor sought clarity on the classification of diligence issues.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-55 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-55
- 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 35-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 35-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of judicial review in immigration law. the sides that brought the case argue courts must examine mixed questions of law and fact. The government contends courts may only review pure legal standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 23-25
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want courts to review mixed questions of law and fact.
The government wants courts to review only pure questions of law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the statutory text includes mixed questions in review.
The government argues the statute excludes mixed questions from review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the government theory creates a sham exception.
Justice Kagan questioned if mixed questions belong in the legal bucket.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-55 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-55
- 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 35-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 35-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
Why it matters
This dispute defines the power of federal courts to correct immigration errors. It determines how much discretion immigration boards retain. It shapes the rights of noncitizens seeking relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
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 41-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 45-55 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 45-55
- 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 35-37 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 35-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 35-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-9
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 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 31-21
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.