Supreme Court Immigration Decisions

We link to many immigration law decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1958 to the present. See below.

We also link to the Oyez website which allows you to read summaries of all Supreme Court cases and listen to Oral Arguments made before the Court.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has made many momentous decisions regarding U.S. immigration.

Client Reviews

If You Want the Best Result Possible

“Mr. Shusterman and his law firm have represented both me personally and the nonprofit organization that I am associated with. The cases have ranged from the simple to the complex and contentious. Each case has been successfully completed. It is very simple – if you want the best result possible, then select the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman.”

- Richard B. Knapp, Chicago, Illinois
Read More Reviews

SUPREME COURT – IMMIGRATION CASES

• Delligatti v. United States (3-21-25)
  • The knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the “use” of “physical force” against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)
• Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (12-10-24)
  • Federal courts cannot review decisions to revoke previously approved visa petitions because these decisions are made at the discretion of immigration agencies.
• Supreme Court Rules Against Wife Who Challenged Her Husband’s Visa Denial (6-21-24)Department of State et al. v. Munoz et al. (6-21-24)
  • The Court held that U.S. citizens do not possess a fundamental liberty interest in having their noncitizen spouses admitted to the United States. Consequently, visa denials by consular officers are generally not subject to judicial review, even when such denials affect the marital relationship.
• Campos-Chaves v. Garland (6-14-24)
  • An in absentia removal order based on a Notice to Appear that lacks the date, time, or place of the respondent’s removal proceeding cannot be rescinded due to the defective Notice to Appear as long as the respondent did otherwise receive notice of the date, time, and place of their removal proceedings.
• Wilkinson v. Garland (3-19-24)
• Supreme Court Revives Biden Immigration Guidelines (6-23-23)
• United States v. Texas (6-23-23)
• United States v. Texas – Oyez (2023)
• United States v. Hansen (6-23-23)
• United States v. Hansen – Oyez (2023)
• Supreme Court Rules That Statutory Criminalization of Encouraging or Inducing Illegal Immigration Is Not Facially Overbroad Under the First Amendment (7-10-23)
• Pugin v. Garland (6-22-23)
• Pugin v. Garland – Oyez (2023)
• Santos-Zacharia v. Garland – Oyez (5-11-23)
• Supreme Court Sides With Biden’s Efforts to End ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program (6-30-22)
• Biden v. Texas (6-30-22)
• Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (6-13-22)
• Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (6-13-22)
• Patel v. Garland (5-16-22)
• Supreme Court orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy reinstated (8-24-21)
• Supreme Court Rules Against Some Immigrants Seeking Bonds (6-29-21)
• Johnson v. Guzman Chavez (6-29-21)
• Borden v. United States (6-10-21)
• Sanchez v. Mayorkas (6-07-21)
• Garland v. Ming Dai (6-01-21)
• Justices unanimously rule against asylum seekers on question of credibility
• U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago (5-24-21)
• Niz-Chavez v. Garland (4-29-21)
• Pereida v. Wilkinson (2021)
• DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020)
• DHS v. Regents of the University of California (2020)
• Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Challenge to California Sanctuary Law (6-15-20)
• Nasrallah v. Barr (2020)
• Barton v. Barr (2020)
• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (2020)
• GUERRERO-LASPRILLA V. BARR: IMPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (AIC)
• Kansas v. Garcia (2020)
• Hernandez v. Mesa (2020)
• Chad Wolf, DHS v. Cook Country, Illinois (2020)
• DHS v. New York (2020)
• Nielsen v. Preap (2019)
• Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
• Pereira v. Sessions (2018)
• Sessions v. Dimaya (2018)
• Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018)
• Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, et. al. (2017)
• Jae Lee v. United States (2017)
• Maslenjak v. United States (2017)
• Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017)
• Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions (2017)
• United States v. Texas (2016)
• Oral Arguments in United States vs. Texas (2016)
• Luna Torres v. Lynch (2016)
• Molina-Martinez v. United States (2016)
• Mata v. Lynch (2015)
• Kerry v. Din (2015)
• Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio (2014)
• Moncrieffe v. Holder (2013)
• Chaidez v. United States (2013)
• Arizona v. United States (2012)
• Holder v. Gutierrez (2012)
• Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012)
• Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012)
• Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct 845 (2011)
• Judulang v. Holder (2011)
• Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011)
• Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010)
• Kucana v. Holder (2010)
• Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2009)
• Nijhawan v. Holder (2009)
• Flores-Figueroa v. United States (2009)
• Nken v. Holder (2009)
• Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009)
• Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 2307 (2008)
• Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 30 (2007)
• Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 1376 (2006)
• Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006)
• Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (2005)
• Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005)
• Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004)
• Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)
• Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)
• INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001)
• Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
• Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
• Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
• INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26 (1996)
• U.S. Department of State v. Legal Assistance For Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., 519 U.S. 1 (1996)
• Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995)
• Sale, Acting Commissioner, INS v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993)
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)
• INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992)
• Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129 (1991)
• INS v. NCIR, Inc., 502 U.S. 183 (1991)
• INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)
• INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988)
• Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)
• INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
• INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984)
• Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984)
• Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984)
• INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
• Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
• Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982)
• Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982)
• Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981)
• Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
• Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978)
• Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
• Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
• Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
• United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)
  • A high caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amrit Sar, Punjab, India, is not a “white person” within the meaning of Rev.Stats., § 2169, relating to the naturalization of aliens.

Supreme Court Immigration Cases

• List of United States Supreme Court Immigration Case Law (Wikipedia)
• Immigration Law: Key Supreme Court Cases (Legal Information Institute – Cornell University)

In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China”, automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

In 1967, in Afroyim v. Rusk (see below), the Supreme Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.

In a 5-to-4 decision, overruling Perez v. Brownell (356 US 44), the Court held that Congress has no general power to revoke American citizenship without consent. Noting the special bond between Americans and their government, a bond that protects every citizen against all manner of destruction of their rights, the Court held that only citizens themselves may voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. This sacred principle applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens.