October Term 2023 · Docket 22-674

Does a notice without a set time and place satisfy immigration law?

The dispute centers on whether a notice lacking a specific date and location meets legal requirements.

Official caption
Campos-Chaves 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

    The government advocate stated the non-citizens failed to attend hearings after receiving written notice.

    The non-citizen advocate stated the government repeatedly asks to be relieved of consequences for flouting the statute.

    The government advocate argued Pereira does not resolve the current statutory question.

    The non-citizen advocate argued ordinary English speakers do not use change to mean indeterminate to determinate time.

    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 government argues a notice without a set time and place is valid. The non-citizens argue the notice must include a specific date and location.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to accept notices without set times and places.

The non-citizens want the Court to require notices to include specific times and places.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statutory text allows notices without specific times and places.

The non-citizens argue the statute requires notices to state a specific time and place.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if changing a notice without a time and place still leaves it without a time and place.

Justice Thomas asked the government advocate to address how Pereira works against his position.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the minimum content of immigration hearing notices. It determines whether agencies can issue vague notices. It affects the rights of non-citizens facing removal.

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