October Term 2020 · Docket 19-863

Does a split notice to appear satisfy the law?

Immigration officials split required details across two documents. the sides that brought the case argue this violates the statute. The government claims the split is legal.

Official caption
Niz-Chavez v. Barr
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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

    Mr. Zimmer argued the statute text unambiguously requires a specific notice document.

    Mr. Zimmer claimed the government admits it can chop information up however it wants.

    Mr. Yang argued the Board adopted the best reading of the statute.

    Mr. Yang stated the text supports providing notice in two documents.

    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 whether immigration law requires one document for all hearing details. the sides that brought the case want a single notice. The government wants to use two documents.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to require one document for all hearing details.

The government wants the Court to allow hearing details in two documents.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute text demands a specific, single notice document.

The government argues the statute permits written notice in two separate documents.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if a 95 percent likelihood of accuracy is sufficient.

Justice Alito asked if a 99 percent likelihood of accuracy is sufficient.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the minimum paperwork for immigration hearings. It determines if officials can split critical legal details. It affects how many people receive proper notice.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON