Gorsuch, Roberts side with left-leaning Supreme Court justices in immigration ruling

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday sided with left-leaning justices in an immigration appeals scenario a narrow ruling that could portend the court's future thinking amid a flurry of legal cases centered on immigration The - ruling in Monsalvo Velazquez v Bondi centered on the government's interpretation of a -day voluntary departure deadline which leadership can use to allow certain immigrants deemed to be of good moral character to depart the U S on their own terms within that timeframe The Supreme Court ruled with the backing of Roberts and Gorsuch that any voluntary departure deadlines for immigrants under the -day departure time frame that fall on a weekend or on a legal holiday in the U S should be extended to the next business day FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS HALT TO TRUMP ADMIN'S CFPB TERMINATIONSWriting for the majority Gorsuch noted that this interpretation of the -day period aligns with long-standing administrative practices including in immigration law When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a long-standing administrative construction the Court generally presumes the new provision works in harmony with what came before Gorsuch disclosed Since at least the s immigration regulations have provided that when calculating deadlines the term day carries its specialized meaning by excluding Sundays and legal holidays and later Saturdays if a deadline would otherwise fall on one of those days Gorsuch added noting that the Illegal Immigration Reorganization and Immigrant Responsibility Act passed by Congress uses the same reading Gorsuch was joined in the majority decision by Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson The court's ruling overturns the decision of the th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals which had voted to reject that interpretation in the incident of Monsalvo Vel zquez a -year-old Colorado resident targeted for removal in And while the episode in question centers largely on the technicalities of certain immigration proceedings the slim majority ruling could offer early signs of the court's thinking as justices gear up for a flurry of high-profile immigration cases including cases centered on due process protections for asylum seekers and on nationwide injunctions that block Trump's birthright citizenship ban from taking force SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASEJustices Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett dissented noting that in their view the court lacked jurisdiction to weigh in on the matter While Thomas explained he would have remanded the affair back to the lower circuit court to consider other outstanding issues and Barrett took issue with the nature of the appeal filed by Monsalvo Alito mentioned in a separate dissenting opinion that he viewed the court's interpretation as a whole as incorrect In his view the -day period imposed by the regime is straightforward and should include weekends There will invariably be a sympathetic pro se alien who is a day or two late Alito stated Unless the Court is willing to extend the statutory deadline indefinitely it would presumably be forced to say in such cases that a day too late is just too bad For this reason sympathy for petitioner cannot justify the Court s decision he commented The narrow ruling comes just weeks before May when justices are slated to hear oral arguments in a situation challenging President Donald Trump s attempt to end birthright citizenship in the U S The circumstance is considered one of the greater part highly anticipated ones to be reviewed by the high court since Trump took office