Finality is a Mirage
Our first dispatch from the Highest Court in the Land
WASHINGTON—Migrant Insider stands, it seems, alone among the press in recognizing the significance of today’s Supreme Court proceedings. While other outlets slumbered, we remained vigilant. As the Justices gathered to deliberate, ours was one of only two reporters present—a fitting testament to the general indifference surrounding a case that, in its dry technicality, may yet upend the lives of hundreds of thousands.
The case, Riley v. Bondi, is complex—though not for any grand constitutional reason. It is complex because law, that weary and overworked mistress, often prefers obfuscation to clarity. At its heart is a question of timing, of deadlines, of bureaucratic machinery grinding against the reality of human fate. It is a case that might have been resolved in a lower court, were it not for the stubborn refusal of immigration law to accommodate common sense.
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
The Case Before the Court
Riley arrived in the United States in 1995 on a tourist visa and, like so many before him, never left. In 2006, he was convicted of selling marijuana and possessing illegal firearms—an infraction for which he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. By 2021, having secured an early release, he emerged into a world that had no place for him. Immigration officials promptly detained him, citing his criminal record as grounds for removal.
He argued for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), a rare shield for those who can demonstrate that deportation would subject them to torture. An immigration judge initially ruled in his favor, but in May 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the decision, and deportation loomed once more.
Riley sought judicial review. Unfortunately for him, while his appeal was pending, another case—Martinez v. Garland—altered the legal landscape. That ruling declared that a denial of CAT protection does not constitute a “final order of removal,” stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over such appeals. With the stroke of a pen, Riley’s legal lifeline was severed.
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
What Transpired in the Room
One might expect that a case of such gravity would command the full attention of the nation’s highest court. One would be mistaken. The morning began not with solemn reflection, but with fatigue and visible irritation. Justice Clarence Thomas reclined so dramatically in his chair that, for a moment, one feared he might capsize. Justice Samuel Alito cradled his head in his hands, as though mourning the necessity of being present at all. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s vacant stare, directed at an almost-empty chamber (initially; the room filled with public onlookers who would later regret the experience, it seemed), suggested a man contemplating his own life choices.
Chief Justice John Roberts, ever the bemused moderator of American decline, opened the proceedings with a quip about jurisdictional debates being endless affairs. A knowing chuckle rippled across the bench, though the attorneys arguing the case—poor souls—remained humorless. Justice Alito, momentarily roused, lamented that jurisdictional disputes “fill up our docket,” prompting an audible laugh from Justice Kavanaugh, who perhaps found solace in the idea that his docket, at least, remained full of something.
But then, something resembling intellectual engagement took hold…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Migrant Insider to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.