Has a noncitizen truly been notified of their immigration-related removal hearing if the federal government fails to follow its statutory requirements to provide written notice? In January, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of proper notification and whether the federal government may remove noncitizens in absentia if they were not duly informed of their hearing date. 

The justices heard arguments that were researched and drafted by Minnesota Law students and professors. Students from the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic and the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic began working on Campos-Chaves v. Garland in late summer 2023 after the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The court consolidated the Campos-Chaves case with two other cases, Garland v. Singh and Garland v. Mendez-Colín. 

A ruling for the noncitizens could reopen immigration proceedings for numerous people who were ordered removed in absentia, despite not receiving a compliant notice to appear, says Nadia Anguiano ’17, associate clinical professor of law and director of the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic. If cases are reopened, individuals then could request forms of immigration relief. One possibility is cancellation of their removal, based on factors including length of time living in the United States and the harm their removal would cause a qualifying relative, such as a U.S.-citizen family member.

The three consolidated cases raise similar questions regarding whether the government may take the drastic measure of removing individuals from the country if it did not follow the steps laid out in paragraph (1) or (2) of Title 8, Section 1229(a) of the U.S. Code. To ensure that noncitizens have due process of law, the statute requires the federal Department of Homeland Security to provide a written notice to appear, including a specific time and location of the removal hearing where the noncitizen must appear, delivered in a specific way, says Elizabeth Bentley, director of the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic and a visiting assistant professor of law. 

“The statute holds the government to high standards when initiating and carrying out removal proceedings to ensure that individuals get all the notice they are entitled to before facing an order of removal,” Bentley says. “We’re asking the Supreme Court to hold that noncitizens in these cases did not receive notice in accordance with the statute and that the statute, in turn, authorizes the immigration court to reopen their proceedings. Then, the noncitizens will have an opportunity to make their case that they are eligible for discretionary relief.” 

The Minnesota Law clinics represent Moris Esmelis Campos-Chaves, who was ordered removed from the U.S. in absentia after he did not appear at his removal hearing in 2005. He was not deported, yet he has lived with the uncertainty of his status ever since. He has no criminal history and now, having resided in the U.S. for nearly 20 years, has children who are U.S. citizens. His removal case was revived following two recent Supreme Court decisions, Pereira v. Sessions in 2018 and Niz-Chavez v. Garland in 2021. In both cases, the court ruled for the noncitizens, who raised similar issues related to proper notice. 

Mission-Driven 

Anguiano says the Campos-Chaves case is a perfect fit for the immigration clinic, with its mission focused on high-impact litigation, and a fruitful opportunity for the two clinics to collaborate on a consequential case. “The Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic aims to effect systemic change through the federal courts,” she says. “We do that by seeking cases that are meaningful to our individual clients and have the potential to make a broader impact on immigration law and policy. Despite our goals for systemic change, it’s very important to me and the students that the individuals we represent ultimately drive the goals of the case.”

The last time clinic students contributed to a Supreme Court case was in 2015, when the Federal Immigration Litigation Clinic prevailed in Mellouli v. Lynch. In Campos-Chaves, clinic teams partnered with attorneys in Texas, Arizona, and California, plus the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, to develop and argue the merits cases. 

Despite the large team, Minnesota Law students were highly involved in preparing the case. “They played an important role in helping to write the Campos-Chaves brief,” Anguiano says. “It’s been an immersive experience for students in both clinics to own this brief in such a way.”  

Anguiano was impressed with how quickly the students came up to speed on a complex case involving statutory interpretation and immigration law, constitutional law, and administrative law. In addition, students became steeped in other challenging topics such as linguistics and how people understand language. 

Clinic students also played a critical role in helping the legal team anticipate and prepare for potentially challenging questions from the justices and distill arguments that would arm the lawyers with effective responses, Bentley says. Numerous practice sessions helped them learn to handle these intricate statutory questions.  

As a 2L in the immigration clinic and now student director, Mallorie Sckerl ’24, has enjoyed collaborating with her clinic and the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic teams. Students served as full-fledged members of the overall litigation group, she says, allowing her to dive into research, flesh out legal strategies and potential arguments to pursue, and draft those arguments.  

Their Day in Court

Nearly 20 Minnesota Law students and faculty traveled to Washington, D.C., to watch the oral argument. The litigation team selected Stanford’s Easha Anand to present the consolidated cases. For Sckerl, it was an extraordinary experience to travel to the Supreme Court and hear Anand make arguments that she had a hand in developing and refining. 

During a visit to Washington before law school, Sckerl stood on the U.S. Supreme Court steps and hoped that one day she would return to argue a case. “I never could have possibly dreamed at that moment that in just two-and-a-half years I would be going back there and actually working on a Supreme Court case,” she says. “That’s something attorneys aspire to for their entire career.”

Attending oral argument was a memorable experience. “We spend so much time as students reading cases and opinions and decisions written by these justices,” Sckerl says. “To be in that room and experience them asking questions that we had anticipated they would ask—knowing that I had taken part in shaping those arguments and some of the responses they had read—it was especially surreal that I had this opportunity as a student. It only made me want to go back there and pursue appellate litigation even more.” 

Earl Lin ’24, student director of the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, found it fascinating to watch the interplay between the justices as they asked questions about the cases. Some focused on the technical language of the statute and statutory interpretation while others probed real world implications about how a ruling would affect the immigration system. 

Lin says working in the clinic and on the Supreme Court case has given him invaluable experience and insight into immigration law,a relatively new area to him. He also got real-world practice developing, writing, and refining appellate cases, something he will carry with him into his career. 

The wide effect the Campos-Chaves case might have is especially important, Lin says. “These cases involve fundamental rights for people in the legal system, both in terms of the individual clients whose rights are at stake and the broader systemic impact that these cases can have.It’s very rewarding and makes you feel the gravity of them. To have that experience as a law student is unique, and it’s a great privilege to come out of law school having had that experience.”

For Bentley, it has been meaningful to assist noncitizens in perhaps winning another day in court and opening doors for students to engage with the Supreme Court. “To have the opportunity to grapple with one of the most challenging questions that the courts are facing and to be able to be part of that process is a remarkable experience,” she says. “I’m really proud of our clinics and our clinic community that we have such a strong reputation and expertise in-house at Minnesota Law to be able to bring a case to the Supreme Court. It’s exciting to be a part of it.”