Barton v. Barr (18-725)

argument 18-725

Barton v. Barr

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question about the stop‑time rule in Barton v. Barr?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case eighteen seven

Unknown 0:03

twenty five, Barton versus Barr. Mr Junikowski? Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The question before the Court today is what does it mean for an offence to render an alien inadmissible for purposes of the stop time rule? The Court should hold that an offence renders an alien inadmissible if the immigration judge finds that the offence renders the alien inadmissible at the removal hearing that precipitates the need to apply the stop time rule. If the court disagrees with that and agrees with the eleventh circuit that inadmissible is a status, it should hold that an alien acquires that status when the alien is capable of being charged with inadmissibility. In this case, neither condition is satisfied, petitioner was not found inadmissible, he wasn't capable of being found inadmissible, therefore he was not rendered inadmissible.

Unknown 0:50

So I'd like to begin this morning with a concession the government makes at pages twenty nine and thirty of its brief, which I think narrows the issues in this case somewhat. So the government concedes that when the words inadmissible and removable, which are the crucial words in the stop time rule, When those words are used in a statute that has a connection to the alien's own removal proceeding, they're a reference to the charge against the alien at that proceeding. They're not a status. So the government agrees that in those contexts, its proposed interpretation of the words inadmissible and removable in the stoptime rule is incorrect. So in section 1226, the mandatory detention statute, that says that an alien who is inadmissible by reason

Unknown 1:30

of having committed an offence under Section eleven eighty two is subject to mandatory detention, the government agrees there that inadmissible is a reference to inadmissible at the proceeding, not just the status of being inadmissible. The government says that's natural in that context, and we agree, because that's a statute with a relationship to the aliens removal. Same thing in section 1252. That's the jurisdiction stripping statute that says that courts of appeals don't have jurisdiction to hear petitions for review by an alien who is removable for certain specified reasons. There, too, the government agrees removable is not the status, it's a reference to the actual charge at the hearing. And they say that's natural in that context, because the statute has a connection to the alien's removal proceeding.

Unknown 2:12

So the question in this case boils down to whether the government has put forward a sufficient case for holding that the words inadmissible and removable in the stoptime rule mean something different from what it concedes they mean in these adjacent or nearby statutes addressing the same subject matter. And I I don't think the government has put forward that case, because I think that many of the contextual clues that apply in the nearby statutes also apply in the stop time rule, or at least there isn't a sufficient reason for construing those statutes differently. So first of all, I I think it's important to recognize that the stop time rule is applied only in the context of removal proceedings after the immigration judge has just decided whether an alien is inadmissible or removable.

Unknown 2:55

So there's like two steps. At step one, the immigration judge decides whether an offence renders the alien inadmissible or removable. And then the immigration judge decides eligibility for cancellation.

Elena Kagan 3:06

That's not quite true though. Some aliens concede Um removability and or seeking cancellation.

Unknown 3:15

Yes, that's correct.

Elena Kagan 3:16

And then there are some that are ordered um who are found inadmissible uh or removable, not on the basis of a crime at all. So that's true. But in the So you have two classes of people that aren't covered by the way you're reading admissibility now?

Unknown 3:33

No, but there is still a threshold finding of inadmissibility or removability. It is true there might not be a hearing, there might be a concession, but in the most typical cases it is based on an offense, and in every case there has just been a a holding, an adjudication that for some reason the alien is inadmissible or removable.