Supreme Court Delivers Narrow Immigration Ruling as High-Stakes Border Battles Loom
In a closely divided decision that is already drawing scrutiny, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a 5–4 ruling in an immigration case that may offer insight into how the justices will approach future legal challenges tied to border enforcement and executive authority.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s left-leaning bloc to form the majority in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi, a case centered on how the federal government calculates a statutory 60-day “voluntary departure” period. That provision allows certain immigrants, if found to have “good moral character,” to leave the United States on their own within the allotted timeframe instead of being formally removed.
The majority concluded that when the final day of that 60-day window falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the deadline must be extended to the next business day. While technical in nature, the ruling overturns decisions from both the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had previously rejected that interpretation.
Writing for the Court, Gorsuch argued that the ruling aligns with decades of administrative practice embedded 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 said.
“Since at least the 1950s, 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.
He further noted that Congress embraced the same understanding when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996.
Gorsuch was joined by Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling applies to the case of Monsalvo Velázquez, a 32-year-old Colorado resident who was ordered removed in 2019.
Although limited to procedural timing, the decision is being closely watched as a potential signal ahead of more consequential immigration disputes. Those include looming cases involving due process claims by migrants and challenges to nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, Fox News reported.
Four justices dissented. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett argued that the Supreme Court should not have taken the case at all. Thomas said he would have returned it to the lower court to resolve unresolved jurisdictional questions, while Barrett criticized the nature of the appeal brought by Monsalvo.
In a separate dissent, Alito rejected the majority’s interpretation outright, maintaining that the statute’s 60-day deadline plainly includes weekends.
“There will always be a sympathetic pro se alien who is a day or two late,” Alito said. “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 said.
The timing of the ruling is notable. It comes just weeks before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on May 15 in a major constitutional challenge to President Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship—one of the most anticipated cases since Trump returned to office.
Since reassuming the presidency, Trump has moved swiftly to restore border enforcement measures dismantled under former President Joe Biden. On his first day back in office, Trump signed executive orders strengthening border security and reviving policies such as “Remain in Mexico,” actions that have led to sharp declines in illegal crossings.
As enforcement has increased, migrants who began their journeys north during Biden’s open-border era are now abandoning those plans or returning home. Reuters highlighted this trend in a recent video report, noting that Trump’s policy shift has discouraged new migration while prompting others already en route to turn back.