Situ Kamu Wilkinson, Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal courts have the power to review an immigration agency's decision about whether a person's deportation would cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to their family. The Court found that this determination is a 'mixed question of law and fact,' meaning it involves applying a legal standard to specific life circumstances. Because it is a question of law, federal judges are allowed to check if the agency applied the rules correctly.

This decision gives noncitizens a second chance to have their cases heard by a judge if an immigration agency denies their request to stay in the U.S. It specifically helps people like Situ Wilkinson, who has a U.S.-citizen son and argued that his removal would cause extreme suffering for his family. Thousands of people facing deportation could now have their 'hardship' claims reviewed by higher courts rather than relying solely on a single agency's judgment.

For years, there has been a debate over how much 'discretion' (the power to make a choice) immigration officials should have without interference from the courts. Federal law generally prevents courts from reviewing purely discretionary decisions, but it allows them to review 'questions of law.' This case clarifies that applying a specific legal test to a person's facts is a legal question that judges can oversee.

Justice Sotomayor led a 6-3 majority, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. They argued that applying a legal standard to facts is a classic legal question. Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that these decisions are mostly about facts and should stay with the immigration agency.

“The application of the statutory hardship standard to an established set of facts presents a quintessential mixed question of law and fact.”

“The hardship determination is overwhelmingly a factual question that should not be classified as a reviewable 'question of law.'”

Federal courts now have the authority to review whether an immigration agency correctly applied the 'hardship' standard in deportation cases.

The case now goes back to the lower courts to review Wilkinson's specific hardship claim under this new ruling. Immigration lawyers will likely use this decision to appeal many other cases where families were previously told they had no right to a court review. Lower courts will have to apply a 'deferential' standard, meaning they will respect the agency's facts but still check the legal logic.

The case centered on whether a court can review an agency's decision that a person's deportation doesn't meet the 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' legal standard.

Noncitizens who have lived in the U.S. for over 10 years and are seeking 'cancellation of removal' to avoid being separated from their American families.

The Court ruled that applying a legal standard to a set of facts is a 'mixed question of law' that federal courts have jurisdiction to review.

His case returns to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That court must now actually review whether the agency's hardship decision was legally sound.

It continues a trend of the Court ensuring that the government's immigration decisions remain subject to some level of judicial oversight rather than being completely unreviewable.