Plain-English summary
Court unanimously: defendants must satisfy all three statutory requirements before challenging prior removal orders in 8
The Supreme Court unanimously held that all three requirements in 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) are mandatory before a defendant charged with unlawful reentry may collaterally attack a prior removal order. The case reverses the Ninth Circuit and remands for further proceedings.
Why this matters
This decision clarifies the strict rules for when people prosecuted for unlawful reentry can challenge the deportation orders that led to that charge. It limits defendants’ ability to undo prior removal orders in criminal court unless they meet all three statutory conditions, affecting many immigration-related prosecutions nationwide.
Who may feel it
- Noncitizens charged with unlawful reentry after a prior removal
- Defense lawyers handling immigration-related criminal cases
- Federal prosecutors who bring unlawful reentry charges under 8 U.S.C. §1326
- Immigration courts and administrative review systems
Key questions
- Does a defendant charged under 8 U.S.C. §1326 need to satisfy all three subparts of §1326(d) to collaterally attack a prior removal order? (Answered: Yes.)
- Are the §1326(d) requirements mandatory conditions for bringing a collateral attack in a criminal unlawful-reentry prosecution? (Answered: Yes.)