Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen. (22-674)

argument 22-674

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 40m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 9 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 issue being argued in Campos‑Chaves v. Garland?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty two six seven four, Campos Chavez versus Garland, and the consolidated case.

Christopher McLeod 0:09

Mr McLeod? Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Each of the non citizens in these cases failed to attend a removal hearing after receiving a written notice of the time and place of that hearing. Under the rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit, however, the non citizens can rescind their inabsentia removal orders based on a supposed lack of notice. That holding defies text, context, and common sense, and it threatens to unsettle hundreds of thousands of inabsentia orders that have been entered over the course of nearly three decades. In reaching that extraordinary result, the Ninth Circuit misread the statutory scheme and this court's decisions in Pereira and Ni Chavez. As to the statute, the Ninth Circuit is wrong that the omission of time and place information in a notice to appear renders all subsequent notices invalid.

Christopher McLeod 0:58

Congress created two distinct forms of notice, and it made both of them potential grounds for inabsentia removal. The removal orders in these cases were based on notices of hearing that specified a new time and place for the removal proceedings, and that warned the non citizens of the consequences of failing to attend those proceedings. That's all Section twelve twenty nine requires for a notice of hearing to be valid. As to Pereira and Ni Chavez, we acknowledge that the Court is not writing on a blank slate when it comes to notices to appear, but Pereira and Ni Chavez do not decide these cases. The question presented today was not briefed in those cases, was not argued in those cases, and was not necessary to resolve in those cases.

Christopher McLeod 1:39

The Court's narrow decisions do not create the sweeping defense to removal that the non citizens here seek. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:47

Well, uh Mr. McLeod, uh Pereira seems to work against you, so I think you it would be good for you to spend a a bit of time on that.

Christopher McLeod 1:57

Certainly, Your Honor. So I think that the important thing about Pereira is that it was a narrow decision that decided a particular question presented. And that question presented was about the interaction between the stop time rule in twelve twenty nine B D one and the notice to appear requirements. And if I could point to where in the court's opinion that holding appears, it's at the beginning of part two B of the opinion. This is on page twenty one fourteen of the Supreme Court reporter version. If you have that available. And at the beginning of the first paragraph of that s section of the opinion, the court says the statutory text alone is enough to resolve this case. It then proceeds to analyze the text of the two provisions that I just referenced.

Christopher McLeod 2:39

Now it's true that after this point in the opinion there is additional analysis, but I think much of that additional analysis is dicta. The court said that that analysis supported or bolstered or Reinforced the conclusion it had already reached. And I think that's particularly true of the statements that the non citizens and the Ninth Circuit have relied on in Pereira. To go directly to the statement about the the meaning of change, the meaning of change was not briefed in Pereira, was not argued in Pereira, and so the court in Pereira did not have before it the wealth of argument and evidence that we have brought to bear on that question in this case.

Sonia Sotomayor 3:13

I I take the point, Mr McLeod, but you know it is a very direct and statement. By allowing for a change or postponement to a new time or place, Paragraph two presumes that the government has already served an NTA that specified a time and place as required by A one. And I don't think we were looking to reach out and decide a lot of questions that weren't before us. I think and this was a you know, eight justices joined this opinion. It just seemed the sort of obvious um Understanding of the statutory scheme. So um you know even if it's dicta, it reflected

Unknown 3:52

what

Sonia Sotomayor 3:52

eight

Unknown 3:53

people thought was pretty obvious when you looked at the statute.