Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-929Apr 22, 2025ImmigrationReversed

The question

Whether a courts may review the meaning of a voluntary-departure term in a final removal order, and whether a 60-day voluntary-departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(2) that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.

Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi

What the Court decided

Reversed. The Court held that a voluntary-departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(2) that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day, rejecting the Tenth Circuit's reading that the statute counts only calendar days. The Court also held it had jurisdiction to review Monsalvo's petition because Section 1252 allows review of legal questions arising from a final removal order and does not require a challenge to removability. Congress enacted the provision against a longstanding regulatory practice, dating to at least the 1950s, of extending immigration deadlines that fall on weekends or holidays, and the identical term "days" carries that specialized meaning throughout the same section of the 1996 statute.

How the justices split

5-4
In favor 5Against 4
Gorsuch
Roberts
Sotomayor
Kagan
Jackson
Thomas
Alito
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The Court's opinion

Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

The Court has jurisdiction under Section 1252 to review the legal question about the meaning of a term in a final removal order, and a petitioner need not challenge removability to obtain that review. On the merits, the term days in Section 1229c(b)(2) carries its specialized legal meaning, so a voluntary-departure deadline falling on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day. Congress enacted the provision against a longstanding regulatory practice of excluding weekends and holidays when a deadline would otherwise fall on one, and the identical term days should be read the same way throughout the same section of the 1996 statute.

Dissenting in part

Thomas, joined by Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett

Thomas dissented, joined in full by Alito and joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett as to Parts I and II. The dissent disagreed with the Court's disposition of the case.

Dissenting

Alito, joined by Kavanaugh

Alito filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Kavanaugh, disagreeing with the Court's disposition of the case.

Dissenting

Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh

Barrett filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Kavanaugh, disagreeing with the Court's disposition of the case.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held it has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252 to review Monsalvo's petition raising a legal question about a term in his final removal order, and rejected the government's argument that a petition must include a challenge to removability.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court held that under 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(2), a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court reasoned that Congress enacted Section 1229c(b)(2) as part of Section 304 of the 1996 IIRIRA against a longstanding regulatory practice, dating to at least the 1950s, of excluding weekends and legal holidays when an immigration deadline would otherwise fall on one.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Thomas filed a dissenting opinion joined by Alito, and joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett as to Parts I and II; Alito and Barrett each filed separate dissenting opinions joined by Kavanaugh.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov