The Supreme Court has issued its first and only opinion of the day in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, ruling against the government, with this literally unprecedented lineup. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… 
Here is Gorsuch's opinion paragraph, which is truly classic Gorsuch. (The answer to the question at the end is no.) supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The upshot of today's decision is that the government screwed up its notice of removal to Mr. Niz-Chavez, who entered the country without authorization, so he can now seek cancellation of his deportation. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
This is a beautiful statutory interpretation case that boils down the fact that Congress used the words "the notice" rather than "a notice" or "the notices," requiring the government to put all the removal information on a single form (which it failed to do). You love to see it.
Today's decision is a sequel to 2018's Pereira v. Sessions, in which SCOTUS held (per Sotomayor) that a removal notice that omits any necessary information is not a proper "notice." Shorter Gorsuch today: We meant what we said in Pereira. supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…
Now the bad news: Why haven't we gotten the Affordable Care Act decision yet? This delay unnerves me. It makes me worry that five justices decided the individual mandate is now unconstitutional AND aren't sure if it can be severed from the rest of the law? slate.com/news-and-polit…
Based on who has written already for the November session, we can deduce that the chief justice probably has the ACA case, which is an encouraging sign because it seems unlikely that he'll do anything crazy. But that also means Alito has Fulton. 🥶
https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1387775228873428992
Want to clarify that Congress used "a notice" and "the notice" throughout the statute, so the decisive formulation is "a definite article with a singular noun," per Gorsuch. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
