Plain-English summary
Court: All statutory steps are mandatory to challenge prior deportation in unlawful-reentry prosecutions
The Court unanimously held that a defendant charged with unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) must satisfy each statutory requirement listed in that subsection before collaterally attacking a prior removal order. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a clear, stringent rule for defendants accused of illegal reentry: they cannot attack a prior deportation order in a §1326 prosecution unless they meet every statutory prerequisite in §1326(d). That limits opportunities to challenge removals in criminal cases and affects defendants who lack records showing they tried to pursue administrative or judicial review in the past.
Who may feel it
- Noncitizens charged under 8 U.S.C. §1326 (illegal reentry)
- Criminal defense attorneys handling immigration-related prosecutions
- U.S. federal prosecutors
- Immigration and removal attorneys and advocacy groups
Key questions
- Does a defendant need to satisfy all three conditions set out in 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) before bringing a collateral attack on a prior removal order in a §1326 prosecution?