United States Supreme Court
565 U.S. ___ (2011)
There were two federal statutory schemes that addressed the rights of foreign citizens to be in the United States. One controlled whether a foreigner could enter the United States for the first time or whether the foreigner would be excluded. The other controlled whether a foreigner could remain in the United States as a resident alien or whether the foreigner would be deported. The two statutes contained different lists of crimes that would result in either exclusion or deportation, respectively. The statute excluding aliens gave United States Attorney General Eric Holder (defendant) the right to provide discretionary relief, and grant rights to a foreigner despite the foreigner's conviction of a crime listed in the exclusionary statute. However, the deportation statute did not directly include the same provision. On Holder's behalf, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) set and administered the rules by which discretionary relief would be provided. Because the deportation statute did not include its own discretionary-relief provision, the BIA used the exclusionary statute’s discretionary-relief provision to decide whether someone was entitled to discretionary relief from both exclusion and deportation. This meant BIA also used the exclusionary statute’s list of crimes to determine whether discretionary relief was available for potential deportees. Joel Judalang (plaintiff), a resident alien, had been convicted of two criminal offenses listed in the deportation statute. A judge ordered Judalang to be deported. Under the BIA's rules, Judalang was not entitled to discretionary relief from the judge's deportation order, because Judalang's deportation offenses were not included in the exclusion statute's list of offenses. Judalang appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the BIA’s determination. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the validity of the BIA's rules.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.