Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorscuh and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the left-leaning judge in court Tuesday in immigration appeals, a narrow ruling that could herald a series of legal cases in immigration-centric legal cases.
Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi's 5-4 ruling focused on the government's interpretation of the 60-day “voluntary departure” deadline, which authorities can use to allow certain immigrants deemed to have “good ethical” to leave the United States on their own terms within that time frame.
The Supreme Court, supported by Robert and Gorsuch, ruled that any voluntary departure deadline should be extended to the next working day within the 60-day departure time frame that falls on weekends or statutory U.S. holidays.
Federal judge orders to stop Trump administrator's CFPB termination
Neil Gorsuch testified at the Supreme Court confirmation hearing in Washington, DC on March 22, 2017 (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Writing for most people, Gorsuch notes that this interpretation of the 60-day period is consistent with long-term administrative practices, including immigration laws.
“When Congress adopts new laws in the context of 'long-term administrative construction, courts often see the new provisions in harmony with what was before,” Gorsuch said.
“Since at least the 1950s, immigration regulations provided that when calculating deadlines, the term “day” has its professional meaning by excluding Sunday and legal holidays (and late Saturdays) if the deadlines otherwise would fall on one of those days,” the 1996 act of illegal immigration reform and immigration liability was adopted by Congress.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined the majority decision of Gorscuh.
The court's ruling overturned the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, while the Immigration Commission voted to reject the ruling in 2019, Monsalvo Velázquez, a 32-year-old Colorado resident who resided in 2019.
While the cases in question focus primarily on the technology of certain immigration procedures, the slim majority ruling may provide early signs of court thinking as the justice prepares for a range of high-profile immigration cases, including those protected by due process, including due process protection against immigration, and cases where Trump’s birth-giving citizens are blocking the nationwide ban on taking Firsters Firers.
Supreme Court hears oral debate in case of right to birth citizen
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh arrived at President Biden's 2024 Congressman's alliance at the Capitol. (Shawn the-pool/getty image)
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett disagree, noting that the court held that the court lacked jurisdiction to weigh the matter.
Although Thomas said he could have returned the case to the Lower Circuit to consider other outstanding issues, and Barrett questioned the nature of the appeal brought by Mengsavo, Alito said in another objection that he saw the court's interpretation as incorrect as a whole.
He believes that the 60-day period imposed by the government is simple and should include weekends.
“There will always be a sympathetic man in love, he is a day or two late,” Alito said. “Unless the court is willing to extend the statutory deadline indefinitely, it is too late and too bad in such a situation.”
“The petitioner's sympathy cannot justify the court's decision,” he said.
Click to get the Fox News app
The narrow ruling came weeks before May 15, when the Justice planned to try oral debate in a case challenging the president Donald TrumpTrying to end the U.S. right to birth citizenship
The case has been considered one of the most anticipated cases reviewed by the High Court since Trump took office.
