October Term 2023 · Docket 22-666

Can courts review agency decisions on exceptional hardship?

the sides that brought the case seek judicial review of hardship determinations. The government claims statutory bars prevent such review.

Official caption
Wilkinson v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
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

    Ms. Santos argued non-citizens can seek relief for family hardship.

    Ms. Sinzdak argued statutory text bars review of discretionary relief.

    Chief Justice Roberts noted the statutory standard requires comparative analysis.

    Justice Alito distinguished this case from prior due diligence rulings.

    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

This case tests whether federal courts can review agency decisions on exceptional hardship. the sides that brought the case argue courts must apply legal standards. The government claims statutory bars block this review.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want courts to review hardship determinations.

The government wants courts to deny review of these determinations.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue hardship standards are legal questions requiring review.

The government argues statutory text bars review of discretionary relief.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if the issue is a legal question.

Justice Kavanaugh asked why the standard is not deferential.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of judicial oversight over immigration relief. It determines whether courts can correct legal errors in hardship cases. The outcome shapes the balance between agency discretion and legal accountability.

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