The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Jackson Authors First Decision of OT2024
The junior justice authors a unanimous immigration law decision for the first of the term.
This morning the Supreme Court issued its first signed decision in an argued case for October Term 2024. (The Court previously DIGged another case.) This restores the tradition of deciding at least some cases in the fall. Last year, the Court's first decision in an argued case did not appear until January.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for a unanimous Court in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, which considered whether a petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved visa petition is revoked due to a determination by the government that the petitioner was in a sham marriage.
Here is how Justice Jackson summarizes the decision:
A common feature of our Nation's complex system of lawful immigration is mandatory statutory rules paired with discretionary exceptions. Executive Branch agencies implement both. Whether any given agency decision is mandatory or discretionary matters, because Congress has limited judicial review of many discretionary determinations. See 66 Stat. 208, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B). This case involves the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to revoke initial approval of a visa petition that Amina Bouarfa, a U. S. citizen, filed on behalf of her noncitizen spouse
The Secretary points to 8 U. S. C. §1155 as the source of the agency's revocation authority; that provision states that the Secretary "may, at any time," revoke approval of a visa petition "for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause." The issue we address today is whether revocation under §1155 qualifies as a decision "in the discretion of " the Secretary such that it falls within the purview of a separate statute—§1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)—that strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain discretionary actions. We hold that it does.
It is not surprising that the first opinion of the term is unanimous, as unanimity can produce a smoother and quicker opinion drafting process. It is also worth remembering that, as the junior-most justice, Justice Jackson is most likely to be assigned unanimous decisions in cases that the justices believe present straight-forward and relatively easily resolved questions.
There is no word yet on when the Court may issue additional opinions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
They announced they may have opinions tomorrow.
Click on 12/11 on the calendar on the home page.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
I'm not sure why they decided to do it that way given they only had one opinion today. But, you can speculate.
"may and "good and sufficient cause" seem about the most open-ended discretion possible. About the only wider grant would be "may., if he feels like it".
100%. Honestly, the bigger issue is just how much unfettered discretion is given, but that's par for the course for our Kafka-esque immigration system.
Made worse by god awful drafting. I you are going to broadly strip judicial review over the Secretary's discretionary actions, then make it absolutely clear that that's what you intended to do. Don't hide it in a subsection about denials of discretionary relief.
At this point, the fact that jurisdiction is stripped is pretty well-established based on other court decisions (the doctrine of consular non-reviewability goes back pretty far). Presumably, Congress is aware of this every time they amend or choose not to amend the INA.
Let’s hope she doesn’t have to define what a woman is any future opinion. She’s not a biologist.
Her Moore concurring opinion was a piece of work
similar to her questions in Skrmetti
https://nypost.com/2024/12/08/opinion/justice-jacksons-questioning-on-trans-case-show-how-biden-made-a-bad-choice-for-scotus/
Oh, look the climatologist/virologist is also an expert on constitutional interpretation!
Well crazy Dave, JK Rowling is not a biologist either but she can define what a woman is.
And as for Jackson, she thinks banning interracial marriages is equivalent to not allowing mentally disturbed children to have their genitalia removed. I think we could do without her constitutional interpretation.
JK Rowling deines what a woman is with a surprising amount of inaccuracy unless being a woman is defined based entirely on how feminine someone looks.
Inaccuracy? You never even read what she wrote on the matter (and probably don't even know who she is) but that doesn't stop the stupid from issuing forth. Some of her comments: "I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.... Womanhood isn’t a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes."
I know you're bastards, but why do you have to be such stupid bastards?
I've read plenty of things from JK Rowling. I would find it surprising that anyone would argue I don't even know who she is.
I was referring to her tweets about Barbra Banda, who meets that exact definition but she still implied was a man.
I don't know all the facts underlying Banda's particular case but it seems to be a rather unique circumstance. And, more importantly, Rowlings has come under fire for her position against the trans insanity, not for any comments regarding the peculiar circumstances surrounding this odd athletic case.
By the way, suggesting you didn't know Rowlings was sarcasm. And I admit that I've never read Rowlings. I'm not a teenage girl.
No, you're a bot. If you had ever been a teenage boy or girl, you'd have read Rowling.
Do a-hole trolls propagate? I confess I never really thought about it.
I don't have any idea what Jackson "thinks," but I do know that's not remotely what she said. Bots don't know that because they just repost talking points from social media.
Uh no crazy Dave, that's exactly the comparison she made. She equated a law that prevents a confused minor from undergoing irreversible medical treatments to a 1960s Virginia law banning interracial marriage. "I’m thinking in particular about Loving v. Virginia, and I’m wondering whether you thought about the parallels, because I see one as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.,,,I mean, these laws, the law here [SB1] operates in the same way. The question of can you marry this other person depended upon what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. … If you couldn’t, I take your law to be doing basically the same thing."
Do you ever argue anything honestly? What a pathetic troll. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't such a stupid troll.
No, she did not. She equated arguments for why that law was constitutional to arguments for why this law is constitutional. (I realize that this is a bit too complex for your programming, which is limited to insults and talking points.) Proponents of the anti-miscegenation law at issue in Loving argued that it did not violate the EPC because it treated blacks and whites equally. (Each was forbidden from entering into an interracial marriage, and each was subject to the same penalties if that prohibition was violated.) Proponents of the Tennessee law have argued that it does not violate the EPC because it treats boys and girls equally.
Oh, and for the record, the Loving case was in the 1960s; the Virginia law was a 1920s law, not a 1960s law.
Thanks for pointing out that irrelevant backstory. What would the world do without asshole trolls?
Outside of crazy Dave’s troll world, the relevant point illustrating Jackson’s incompetence, is comparing the issues at all.
Not an expert - that doesnt change the fact that Jackson's concurring opinion was crap. Quite a few distortions of precedent.
As usual you have no substantive criticism of my comment
Your comment had — literally — zero substance to criticize. (It was, as a reminder, "Her Moore concurring opinion was a piece of work.")
You're overdoing the asshole troll schtick crazy Dave. Less is more.
I’m surprised it was unanimous here. Terms like “good cause” are often signals matters are not left to unfettered discretion but can be reviewed by courts.
I'm surprised Jackson ruled this way.
Ans what is a "sham" marriage?
I know couples in academia who live thousands of miles from each other -- they live where they found jobs.
When a family member married a foreigner I was asked to provide photos of family gatherings to help prove it was a real marriage. Your academic couples would probably not be married in the eyes of the federal government if they never lived together.
I think by now there is a good amount of precedent.
The opinion did point out an anomaly of the law. If the government says "not a real marriage" up front then the denial gets reviewed. If the government says "seems legit" and then later says "not a real marriage" the revocation is not reviewable. After revocation the couple can file a new application and seek review if it is denied. Maybe that last option got Jackson on board. They let her write "noncitizen" instead of "alien" so how could she refuse?
A sham marriage is a marriage entered into for the purpose of enabling immigration rather than for the purpose of establishing a familial relationship.
If one stereotypes the left as wanting decisions to be made by bureaucrats, and the right as being opposed to immigrants, 9-0 makes perfect sense 🙂
Who is opposd to legal immigration?
Most of the people here when I suggest that we actually provide opportunities for people to immigrate here since the current system makes it all but impossible for many.
Ten million over three and a half years don't seem to know what "all but impossible" means.
Setting aside the made up facts, he said legal immigration. And he said "for many." If you're married to a citizen, it's very easy. If you're just a random foreigner without familial ties who wants to come here legally, it's all but impossible.
Hell, if you are a foreigner from Mexico with family ties here, it's still practically impossible.
If you're an adult brother or sister of a US citizen wishing to come from Mexico, the waiting time is approximately 22 years.
More Justice Jackson news:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/12/10/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-broadway-debut-juliet/
The Mayor of Boston plays piano with the Boston Pops.
Deeply weird that the Supreme Court signs of on an ouster clause (in English jargon) unanimously like that. Regardless of statutory interpretation, shouldn't there be at least a passing reference to constitutional due process requirements?
What constitutional due process requirements? There is no constitutional requirement to give would-be immigrants any judicial review.
That said, as noted above, I was expecting at least one of the Justices to make an argument that “good and sufficient cause shown” implies judicial review as a matter of statutory interprwtation.
I was a little confused when I read the title. For me, "Justice Jackson" will always be the former AG who died in 1954?"
Not Justice Howell Jackson?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howell_E._Jackson