Supreme Court Opinions June 26, 2025 by Supreme Court of the United States - A

Riley v. Bondi Revisions: 6/26/25 (No. 23-1270)

Summary

The Supreme Court case *Riley v. Bondi* addresses the timeliness of petitions for review in immigration cases, specifically concerning orders of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. The Court held that a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order in a withholding-only proceeding is not a final order of removal. It also determined that the 30-day filing deadline for petitions for review is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

Expected Effects

This ruling clarifies the process for appealing immigration decisions, potentially preventing premature filings and ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to challenge both removal orders and denials of CAT relief. The decision impacts how the Fourth Circuit and other courts handle petitions for review in similar immigration cases, requiring them to consider the merits of the case rather than dismissing them on jurisdictional grounds related to filing deadlines.

Potential Benefits 4/5

- Prevents premature filing of appeals, reducing unnecessary burdens on the court system.
- Ensures individuals can challenge both removal orders and denials of CAT relief in a single, comprehensive appeal.
- Clarifies the distinction between jurisdictional requirements and claims-processing rules, promoting fairer application of legal procedures.
- May lead to more consistent application of immigration law across different circuits.
- Upholds the right to judicial review, ensuring that individuals have access to the courts to challenge governmental actions.

Most Benefited Areas:

Social Equity & Poverty Reduction ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Individual Liberties, Rights & Privacy ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Justice System Fairness & Rule of Law ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Potential Disadvantages

- Could potentially lengthen the overall appeals process in some cases, as individuals may wait until all issues are resolved before filing a petition for review.
- May create confusion regarding the specific timeline for filing appeals, particularly for those unfamiliar with immigration law.
- Could lead to increased litigation as individuals challenge the application of the claims-processing rule in specific cases.
- Might require courts to manage more complex cases involving both removal orders and CAT relief denials.
- The dissent suggests the ruling creates a protective appeal requirement, forcing noncitizens to file immediate appeals of removal orders to protect their right to judicial review.

Constitutional Alignment 4/5

The ruling aligns with constitutional principles of due process by ensuring individuals have a meaningful opportunity to seek judicial review of governmental actions affecting their rights. By clarifying the filing deadlines and distinguishing between jurisdictional rules and claims-processing rules, the Court promotes a fairer and more accessible legal system. This aligns with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, which applies to aliens in removal proceedings.