October Term 2024 · Docket 23-583

Does a sham marriage bar visa approval after the fact?

the sides that brought the case seek review of a visa revocation. The government argues Congress barred such lawsuits.

Official caption
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland Security
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 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. Deger-Sen argued the statute bans approval, not later revocation.

    Ms. Sinzdak argued Congress banned revocation lawsuits to streamline review.

    chief_justice_roberts_asked_about_procedure_and_review_levels.

    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 courts can review a visa revocation based on a sham marriage.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 15, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want a court to review the revocation decision.

The government wants to block all judicial review of revocations.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute bans approval, not later revocation.

The government argues Congress streamlined review by banning revocation lawsuits.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if the government always revokes sham marriages.

Justice Thomas asked if some revocations are unreviewable.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of judicial oversight over immigration decisions.

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