Campos-Chaves v. Garland
In brief
A later notice giving the hearing time and place can prevent a noncitizen from reopening a removal order entered after they missed that hearing.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 14, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Alito
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that the government provides adequate notice for removal proceedings when it sends an initial document lacking the time and place of the hearing, followed by a second document containing that information.
- Who it affects
- Noncitizens who missed immigration hearings generally cannot reopen their removal orders solely because their first notice lacked a time and place, if a later notice supplied those details.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
This decision prevents noncitizens from rescinding in absentia removal orders based on the initial defective notice if they received the subsequent hearing details.
The case resolves how immigration courts apply federal notice rules when the government sends hearing details in more than one document.
Question presented
Does the government provide adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information?
What the Court decided
The vote
From the opinions
“Noncitizens who received proper notice for the hearings they missed cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders based on defective notice.”
What's next
Immigration courts and lower federal courts will apply this rule to challenges seeking to reopen removal orders entered in absentia. Agencies and affected parties must focus on whether the person received proper notice for the specific hearing they missed.
Why it matters
For example, a person who received a later hearing notice but did not attend cannot use the earlier incomplete document alone to rescind the order.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Campos-Chaves
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Campos-Chaves v. Garland?
- The Court ruled that a later notice with the hearing time and place can satisfy the notice requirement for a missed immigration hearing.
- Who is affected by the Campos-Chaves decision?
- Noncitizens ordered removed after missing hearings are affected when they received a later document listing the hearing details.
- What happens next after Campos-Chaves v. Garland?
- Immigration courts and lower courts will apply the decision when deciding whether an in absentia removal order can be reopened.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.