Access to Justice

RELEASE: Supreme Court Removes Roadblocks for Asylum-Seekers Seeking Access to Courts

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, in which a unanimous Supreme Court issued a rare victory for a noncitizen seeking judicial review of the government’s decision denying her humanitarian protection in the United States,  Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh had this reaction:

Today the Court concluded that the statutory requirement that non-citizens take advantage of all administrative remedies within the immigration court system before filing in federal court is not jurisdictional and therefore can be waived by the government or excused by judges in exceptional circumstances.

Echoing the arguments in an amici curiae brief we filed along with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the Court explained that the statutory requirement is not jurisdictional because, among other things, Congress did not use the sort of clear language necessary to impose the harsh consequences of a jurisdictional requirement.

The Court also held that noncitizens do not need to petition an appeals board for reconsideration of every immigration decision before bringing a case to federal court.

In reaching this result, the Court removes some of the many roadblocks facing noncitizens seeking review of the government’s decision to remove them from the country.  This result is especially important because noncitizens in removal proceedings frequently have limited English proficiency, are not guaranteed legal representation, and are often subject to mandatory detention during their proceedings.

Today’s decision is an important victory for noncitizens trying to navigate our complicated immigration system—and for access to the courts.

##

Resources:

Amici curiae brief in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland:

https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Santos-Zacaria-Brief-Amici-Curiae.pdf

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
February 12, 2026

February Newsletter: CAC Supports Everyday Americans Fighting for Their Day in Court

At every level of our judicial system, a complex set of doctrines determines what cases...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

In T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest...
Access to Justice
January 14, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Justices Pose Difficult Questions to State-Affiliated Corporation that Claims Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Galette v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.