United States v. Palomar-Santiago

The justices are being asked whether a person charged with illegally returning to the United States can challenge an earlier deportation order without meeting all three steps Congress set out for that kind of attack. Palomar-Santiago says his original removal was invalid because it was based on a drunk-driving conviction that was later treated as not making him removable under Ninth Circuit law.

The Court has not scheduled oral argument yet. The dispute is whether showing the original removal was legally wrong by itself excuses the statute's other requirements, such as using available agency appeals and lacking a real chance for court review.

The answer could affect noncitizens facing illegal-reentry prosecutions who want to argue that their old deportation orders were legally flawed. For example, it could decide whether someone removed over a conviction later deemed non-removable still must show he used available agency appeals and lacked a real chance for court review.

Watch for the Supreme Court to schedule oral argument or make another calendar move. No decision window is available yet.

It must decide whether a defendant can attack an old deportation order by showing only that the order was legally mistaken. Or whether he also must meet the statute's other required steps.

The case could affect noncitizens prosecuted for returning after removal. It may shape how often flawed old deportation orders can be challenged in those criminal cases.

The next major sign is oral argument being scheduled, unless the Court makes another scheduling move first. No decision timing is available yet.