Court unanimously sides with government in immigration dispute

[OneCrazyDiamond]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-unanimously-sides-with-government-in-immigration-dispute/

Did anyone else see this? What does this mean for the people like Mr. Abrego Garcia, or the countless others? It reads like it side steps due process.

[MichMan]

1. How does it sidestep due process?

People first have their cases heard in Immigration court and are then given an opportunity to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Plus, it was a unanimous decision, which means all 9 justices clearly agreed on the law.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

2. It skips district judges?

I dont know really. It's why I posted here. This is my go to spot for understanding articles like these. I think its district courts where the admin keeps getting smacked down on their draconian immigration enforcement.

[MichMan]

3. Why do you think all justices agreed 9-0 ?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

4. I wouldnt even pretend to know,

But if pressed, because the law was written that way, or prior rulings make that the only option.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

5. Will this affect Judge Xinis' rulings?

Do you you know?

[pat_k]

7. I'm not sure, but I think Abrego Garcia's asylum case is still in process.

I could be wrong, but I think his application for asylum was denied back in 2019, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) granted "withholding of removal" status due to the danger he would face from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador.

He filed a motion to reopen his 2019 asylum case. That motion was denied in Oct 2025. I can't find any information indicating that he has appealed that ruling to the BIA, which is the first layer of appeal of IJ rulings.

I'm not sure where things stand, but I think the latest ruling was that they were prohibited from deporting him while he exhausts options in the asylum case.

The SCOTUS decision would only apply to a federal court review of a BIA ruling (if there ever is one in his case).

[OneCrazyDiamond]

8. Thanks.

His case jumped to mind when i read this.

[pat_k]

6. I'm not sure what it means, particularly in light of the DOJ effectively turning the BIA into a dismissal factory.

It sounds like when the Board of Immigration of Appeal (BIA) has conducted a full merit review of an immigration judges (IJ) ruling, and upholds the ruling, the standard to be applied by the Federal Courts in reviewing a BIA decision is "deferential, ‘substantial-evidence standard.’

For a court that has found all sorts of ways to dismantle the administrative state/regulatory agency determinations, applying "a deferential, ‘substantial-evidence standard’ for review of agency factual findings" doesn't sound like a particularly bad thing.

The question it begs for me is this. The first layer of appeal of an IJ ruling open to an asylum seeker is to the BIA. The next layer is appeal of the BIA ruling to the Federal Courts. But the felon's DOJ has effectively eliminated BIA review. The DOJ has changed the rules to implement a default of summary dismissal for most appeals. That is, appeals are automatically dismissed within 15 days unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote to review the case on its merits.

So, the BIA will be conducting few merit reviews. If the new automatic dismissals are considered a judgement upholding the IJ, does that judgment merit "deference" given that it was reached by default?

I'm hoping Popok will provide an analysis of the full implications of the SCOTUS decision.