Supreme Court Oral Arguments Today in Niz-Chavez v. Barr

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, with new Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is hearing oral arguments in Niz-Chavez v. Barr.  It is a sequel to Pereira v. Sessions (2018) and raises the question “[w]hether, to serve notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in Section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.”

The Cornell Legal Information Institute previews the arguments here.

The SCOTUS blog preview by Jayesh Rathod is here.  He concludes:

“Given the similarities between this case and Pereira, the outcome in Niz-Chavez is likely to turn on whether the justices believe the logic of Pereira applies equally to this question and compels a ruling in favor of Niz-Chavez. At the same time, the court must also assess whether the government truly needs the flexibility inherent in a two-step process – that is, whether the logistics of enforcement and removal operations necessitate the practice, or whether it simply enables executive branch inefficiency. The Pereira court opined that the government should have the technological wherewithal to include date and time information on NTAs, but it remains to be seen how the justices will weigh this underlying policy question. Whether premised on statutory, historical or practical grounds, the court’s ultimate decision will affect not only the functioning of agencies, but the lives of thousands of noncitizens seeking relief in removal proceedings.”

UPDATE (Nov. 9, 9:15 a.m. PST):  Listen to the arguments on CSPAN here.

Nov. 9, 1:30 p.m. PST:  The transcript to the argument is here.

UPDATE (Nov. 11):  Jayesh Rathod recaps the arguments for SCOTUSBlog and concludes:

“By the end of the hour, four justices – Breyer, Gorsuch, Kagan and Sotomayor – had openly expressed skepticism about the government’s reading of the statute. Roberts and Barrett revealed less, but seemed persuaded that the government could sidestep this entire issue by modifying some agency practices. Although few of the justices invoked Pereira as controlling precedent, the court’s decision there – coupled with its seeming reluctance to indulge bureaucratic inefficiencies – could very well lead to another lopsided decision in favor of noncitizens.”

KJ