United States v. Palomar-Santiago
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in United States v. Palomar-Santiago and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of United States v. Palomar-Santiago.
In United States v. Palomar-Santiago, the Supreme Court addressed whether a noncitizen can challenge a removal order without meeting specific statutory requirements. Palomar-Santiago, previously removed due to a felony DUI conviction, argued the order was invalid after a 2004 decision clarified such convictions are not aggravated felonies. The Ninth Circuit had excused him from certain requirements, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in United States v. Palomar-Santiago.
The Court held that each of the statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory for challenging a removal order.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in United States v. Palomar-Santiago. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to United States v. Palomar-Santiago
The case involves the procedural requirements for challenging a removal order, specifically the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the opportunity for judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The statute criminalizing unlawful reentry provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that (1) 'any administrative remedies that may have been available' were exhausted, (2) 'the opportunity for judicial review' was lacking, and (3) 'the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.'
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to United States v. Palomar-Santiago
The case discusses the availability and necessity of judicial review in the context of challenging a removal order.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The substantive validity of a removal order is quite distinct from whether the noncitizen exhausted administrative remedies or was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in United States v. Palomar-Santiago that support the summary and concepts above.
Each of the statutory requirements of § 1326(d) is mandatory.
The Ninth Circuit's interpretation is incompatible with the text of § 1326(d).
The text of § 1326(d) unambiguously forecloses Palomar-Santiago's interpretation.
