Santos-Zacaria v. Garland

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in  Santos-Zacaria v Garland. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 8 U-S-C § 1252(d)(1) bar a court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider? The case was decided on May 11, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Title 8 U-S-C § 1252(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional provision; it does not require an immigrant to seek a motion to reconsider, which is a discretionary form of review, only remedies available as a matter of right. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the majority opinion of the Court. The language of § 1252(d)(1) is substantially different from jurisdictional provisions found elsewhere. Absent a clear statement that Congress intended the forfeiture rule to be jurisdictional, courts should not interpret such rules as jurisdictional because of the potentially harsh consequences of doing so. Thus, § 1252(d)(1) is best understood to require a noncitizen to exhaust only those remedies available as of right. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.