Supreme Court Issues Unusual Opinion in Immigration Case

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down an unusual decision in the case of an immigrant who argued that his deportation would create hardship for his son.

The case, Wilkinson v. Garland, focused on a migrant from Trinidad and Tobago named Situ Wilkinson. Federal immigration agents have sought to deport Wilkinson, who argued that his removal from the U.S. would create "hardship" for his son. A federal appeals court previously rejected his arguments, citing lack of jurisdiction.

Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via email.

However, on Tuesday, a rare coalition of Supreme Court justices sided with Wilkinson in the case, which asked them to determine whether the hardship standard is a "mixed question of law and fact" or an unreviewable "discretionary judgment call."

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were joined by former President Donald Trump's three appointees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—in writing the majority opinion, ruling that the unusual hardship standard is a "mixed question of law and fact."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed an opinion concurring with the majority, while Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

"Today's decision announces nothing more remarkable than the fact that this Court meant what it said in Guerrero-Lasprilla: Mixed questions of law and fact, even when they are primarily factual, fall within the statutory definition of "questions of law" in §1252(a)(2)(D) and are therefore reviewable," the court ruled.

Several legal experts noted the unique coalition of justices agreeing on the ruling, which comes as the court continues to face criticism for appearing to become increasingly politicized in recent years.

"Wilkinson v. Garland produces a 5-1-3 split at #SCOTUS, but not the 5-1-3 split you were expecting. Sotomayor joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh. KBJ concurs in judgment. Chief, Alito & Thomas dissent," legal commentator Jonathan H. Adler posted on X, formerly Twitter.

Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein posted that the decision has an "uncommon lineup."

In 2019, Wilkinson was arrested by police searching for drugs in a house where he was working as a contractor. He was charged with allegedly selling cocaine but maintains he was "simply in the wrong place at the wrong time." The charges were dropped, but federal immigration agents moved for his deportation, according to the complaint.

However, he argued that his deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" on his 9-year-old son, as well as create a threat to his safety due to his "membership in a particular social group," pointing to individuals who filed complaints against police.

The arguments were rejected by an immigration judge and the decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which determined that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the "discretionary" hardship claim, a determination that has now been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Supreme Court for comment via email.

Correction 3/19/24, 2:30 p.m. ET: This article was updated to correct the spelling of Sonia Sotomayor.