A deportation case that could affect your right to challenge government power
On March 24, the Supreme Court will hear a case that, while technically about immigration, could affect every American’s ability to challenge government overreach. At stake is whether people have a fair chance to challenge government decisions in court, or if procedural traps can block them from doing so.
In Riley v. Garland, Pierre Riley is seeking to contest an immigration ruling that could result in his deportation to Jamaica, where he claims he faces torture. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Riley missed his 30-day window to seek judicial review—even though the immigration agency hadn’t completed its decision-making process within that timeframe. According to the court, Riley should have filed his challenge while the agency was still considering his case.
This Catch-22 should alarm all Americans. Imagine being told you had to appeal a city’s decision to deny your building permit before the city even reviewed your application, or challenge a licensing board’s decision to deny you a professional license before the board made its decision. Such a system doesn’t just delay judicial review; it deliberately structures the process to make meaningful review practically impossible. Early review—like an interlocutory appeal—can work when there’s a clear ruling to contest. But here, with no decision yet, it would force “protective” appeals, wasting judicial resources on challenges to unfinished agency actions.
That’s why Pacific Legal Foundation, joined by an unprecedented coalition including law professors, civil rights groups, and human rights experts, has urged the Supreme Court, through separate amicus briefs, to reject interpretations that structure judicial review to trap even the most diligent parties. While these allies span the ideological spectrum, they agree on an essential principle: When government agencies make decisions affecting fundamental rights, the path to meaningful court review should be clear and accessible, not filled with procedural obstacles designed to frustrate review.
This principle isn’t new. For decades, the Supreme Court has protected access to courts across various contexts. In Sackett v. EPA (2012), the Court rejected the EPA’s argument that property owners had to risk massive fines before challenging Clean Water Act compliance orders. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes (2016), the Supreme Court ensured landowners could contest wetlands determinations without first spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on pointless permit applications. And, in Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), the Court eliminated procedural barriers that effectively barred property owners from federal courts.
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Pierre Riley’s case threatens to undermine these precedents. By its logic, federal agencies are allowed to insulate their decisions from judicial scrutiny simply by structuring their processes to outlast statutory review periods. This would effectively delegate to agencies the power to decide whether their own decisions can be challenged in court—a power that belongs to Congress, not executive agencies.
The Founders established an independent judiciary precisely to prevent government officials from acting as the final judges of their own actions. This is the entire purpose of the separation of powers. When agencies make decisions affecting fundamental rights, courts must remain available to check government overreach. The stakes are particularly high in Riley’s case, where deportation to Jamaica could mean facing torture or death. A system designed to make judicial review difficult to obtain makes a mockery of this essential safeguard.
The Supreme Court should uphold the separation of powers by reaffirming that judicial review procedures must be structured to enable meaningful oversight, rather than acting as trap doors designed to frustrate legitimate challenges. While Riley involves immigration, the fundamental principle at stake—that government power must answer to independent judicial oversight—protects all Americans’ right to their day in court.
