October Term 2020 · Docket 20-315
Does Temporary Protected Status satisfy the admission requirement for permanent residency?
the sides that brought the case seek permanent residency. The government denies eligibility. The dispute centers on statutory interpretation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Saharia argued TPS recipients meet the admission requirement. She cited Section 1254a(f)(4).
Mr. Huston argued the agency acted lawfully. He cited the statutory definition of the term.
Justice Breyer questioned the logical interpretation of the statute. He asked for a simple explanation.
Justice Thomas asked for case law support. He questioned the assumption that status implies admission.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 53-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests a specific statutory definition. It involves immigration status and legal eligibility.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 19, 2021.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want permanent residency eligibility. They argue their status meets the law.
The government wants to deny eligibility. It argues the sides that brought the case lack required admission.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
What each side says
the sides that brought the case claim non-immigrant status implies admission. They cite specific statutory definitions.
The government argues status does not equal admission. It cites statutory text and definitions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked about logical interpretation of status. He questioned the definition of illegal entry.
Justice Thomas asked for case law support. He questioned the link between status and admission.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 53-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-23
Why it matters
The outcome defines eligibility for permanent residency. It clarifies the meaning of statutory terms. It affects future immigration cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
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 15-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-53 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 53-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 53-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-15
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.