At oral argument this morning, the government doubled down on their textual argument. Rather than consider the harsh consequences that may flow to immigrants (particularly those of color) who have been wrongfully deported, it argued those considerations were irrelevant. /10

Palomar-Santiago presses that an invalid removal order satisfies the statutory requirements for a collateral challenge. And grounding criminal liability in an erroneous removal order raises grave const. concerns the Court has already warned against. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-437/172876/20210324154838708_Palomar-Santiago_Response_Brief.pdf /11

The starkness of the govt position is clear when considering context. As a group of legal service providers explained in their amicus brief, noncitizens face substantial barriers and are often left to navigate the labyrinth of imm. law w/o counsel. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-437/173569/20210331153125629_Palomar-Santiago%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf /12

A side note: The govt is not advancing a "Trump position." The Biden Admin. could have changed its position (as in other cases). It didn't. Instead, it is arguing that an individual who was wrongly removed can be prosecuted b/c he didn't tick all the right boxes /13

The President can and must do better. As he stated when campaigning, we deserve a "fair and humane immigration system." https://joebiden.com/immigration/  /14

We need to wait for a ruling to know the full reach of this case. But given the frequency the govt relies on Section 1326, any ruling could have wide implications. And even if the scope is not wide, Palomar-Santiago's story shows how great the impact can be on an individual. /end