The Supreme Court of the United States will be hearing several immigration-related cases in the 2021-2022 term. Those cases include State of Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, Patel v. Garland, Egbert v. Boule, and Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez are detailed below. Topics being reviewed include the public charge rule, decisions made based on an alleged mistake in completing a form, rights during the search process, and noncitizen bond eligibility while waiting for a removal decision.

State of Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco

In Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, Arizona argues that by dismissing the cases challenging the public charge rule, the government circumvented the rules requiring notice and comment when a new rule is implemented.
Arizona argues that the action by the Biden administration to dismiss the cases filed by the previous administration to enforce the public charge rule was a way of getting around the notice and comment required by the rules of Administrative Procedure. It, therefore, prevented states like Arizona from asserting their interest in the matter. Arizona is essentially asking the Court to let it step into the shoes of the Federal Government and litigate the lawsuit based on their interest in the outcome.

Patel v. Garland

In Patel, Mr. Patel filed a change of status from I-140 immigrant visa to permanent resident. While that was pending, he received his EAD and applied for a driver’s license with the State of Georgia. Mr. Patel alleges, he mistakenly checked the box saying that he was a U.S. citizen on his driver’s license application. DHS later denied his change of status application on the basis that it was a false misrepresentation to claim he was a U.S. citizen on his driver’s license application.

On this issue, the courts are split on whether the decision of the officer to deny the change of status based on an alleged mistake is reviewable. Generally, questions of law are reviewable, but questions of fact are discretionary; thus, not reviewable. Here, Mr. Patel alleges that the question of whether the mistake was material is a matter of law that is reviewable by the courts.
In this case, the Court will have the opportunity to cure the split in lower court opinions. If the Court sides with Mr. Patel, this likely means that decisions made by an officer whose actions are based upon the meaning of a legal term will be subject to review by the courts. If the Court sides with the Government, then the finding by an officer on the elements of some legal claims, like materiality, will not be reviewable by the courts.

Egbert v. Boule

In Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court will decide whether a border patrol agent is subject to a Bivens suit for actions taken while conducting a search for an individual during an investigation. In Egbert, the border patrol agent was investigating an Inn by the Canadian border to arrest a Turkish national who was suspected to be involved in human trafficking.
During the arrest innkeeper (Boule) intervened between the Turkish national and the officer, resulting in injury to the innkeeper. The innkeeper sued the border patrol agent for damages in a Bivens lawsuit and the court of appeals found for the innkeeper. In Bivens, a plaintiff was allowed to sue federal agents for 4th amendment violations as long as they could prove the injury. In this case, Mr. Egbert (the border patrol agent) claims that the lower court erroneously decided he was subject to the suit, and the Court should address this issue.

If the Court sides with the Border Patrol Agent, then the Agents will be shielded from being personally sued for damages resulting from constitutional violations in an investigation. If the Court sides with the innkeeper, then it opens Border Patrol Agents to lawsuits resulting from constitutional violations during investigations.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez

In Arteaga-Martinez, Mr. Arteaga-Martinez entered the U.S. various times without inspection and the last time ICE detained him. He asked for withholding of removal based on a fear of persecution in his home country. The ICE officer referred the case to the courts. The district court held, and the appellate court affirmed, that noncitizens are entitled to a bond hearing after being detained for 6 months. Now, the Government is appealing to the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court arguing that there is no basis in U.S. Code Title 8 to find that a detained noncitizen is entitled to a bond hearing. The outcome of this case will affect whether a noncitizen is entitled to bond while awaiting a decision on their withholding of removal.

ILBSG continues to follow potential and current policy changes. If you have questions about how these cases could affect you or any immigration-related issues, contact us at ILBSG. We put our expertise and experience to work for you to ensure you get the right advice.

Immigration Policy U.S. Supreme Court