Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
The Court ruled that immigrants who are deportable because of aggravated-felony convictions cannot bring their challenges directly to a federal court of appeals, because Congress specifically cut off that route in a 1996 immigration law.
But the Court also held that these same immigrants can still pursue habeas corpus petitions in federal district court, so they are not left with no way to raise their claims at all.
“We agree with petitioners that leaving aliens without a forum for adjudicating claims such as those raised in this case would raise serious constitutional questions.”
The Court's concern about denying immigrants any court in which to raise their claims.
How it got here: The Second Circuit dismissed the petitioners' direct petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction, and they sought Supreme Court review while also pursuing separate district court habeas petitions.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Three lawful permanent residents — Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, and Fazila Khan — faced final orders of removal from the United States based on past criminal convictions they did not dispute. They wanted to challenge a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals that they could not even apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation once available under old immigration law. Each filed both a court of appeals petition and a separate district court habeas petition to preserve their claims.
The question before the Court
If a law bars appeals courts from reviewing deportation orders against people convicted of serious crimes, can those people still challenge their case some other way, through a habeas petition in district court?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court held that people in the petitioners' position may not bring their claims directly to a federal court of appeals, because the 1996 immigration law Congress passed clearly stripped courts of appeals of jurisdiction over removal orders against people convicted of aggravated felonies. The statute's language on this point was clear enough that the Court found no room to read it otherwise for a direct appeal.
At the same time, the Court held that the same law does not clearly strip federal district courts of their power to hear habeas corpus petitions raising the same claims. Because Congress had not spoken with the same clarity about closing off habeas review, the petitioners could still pursue relief that way. The Court of Appeals had reached the same conclusion, and the Supreme Court affirmed its judgment in full.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Immigrants facing removal because of certain criminal convictions now know which courthouse door is open to them: not the court of appeals, but the district court through a habeas petition. This keeps a legal avenue open for people challenging denials of discretionary relief, while confirming that Congress successfully closed off the faster, more direct appellate route for this group.
What changes now
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the direct petitions for review, so those claims cannot proceed in that court. The petitioners must instead continue pursuing their already-filed habeas corpus petitions in federal district court, where they can raise the same legal challenges to the denial of discretionary relief. This is a final merits decision, issued alongside the companion case INS v. St. Cyr, which supplies most of the underlying legal reasoning.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide the merits of whether the petitioners are actually entitled to the discretionary waiver they sought — only which court can hear that argument. It also left open, per a footnote, whether courts of appeals could still hear certain factual or substantial constitutional challenges, since those issues weren't raised here.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice O'Connor
Justice O'Connor dissented for the reasons given in her dissent in the companion case, INS v. St. Cyr, and stated she agreed with Justice Scalia's proposed disposition of this case rather than the majority's approach.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
“I would vacate the judgment of the court below and remand with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, with prejudice to petitioners Calcano-Martinez's and Madrid's refiling in the District Court.”Scalia's dissent would have closed off habeas review entirely rather than preserving it.
Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, argued (relying on his St. Cyr dissent) that the immigration law's text clearly stripped both the courts of appeals and the district courts of jurisdiction to hear these claims. He would have vacated the judgment and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, barring the petitioners from refiling in district court.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court looked at the plain text of the 1996 immigration law's jurisdiction-stripping provision, which explicitly removes courts of appeals' power to review removal orders against anyone deportable because of certain serious crimes, including aggravated felonies.
- Because the petitioners had all been convicted of aggravated felonies, the Court found the statute's language fairly clearly stripped the court of appeals of any power to hear their direct petitions for review.
- The Court then considered the petitioners' argument that closing off all judicial review entirely would raise serious constitutional questions — a concern about whether people could be denied any forum at all to challenge how the law was applied to them.
- To avoid that constitutional problem, the Court applied a background principle of statutory interpretation: when a law is genuinely ambiguous about whether it eliminates habeas jurisdiction, courts should not read it that way unless Congress said so with much greater clarity than it used here.
- Applying that principle, the Court concluded that although Congress clearly barred the direct court-of-appeals route, it had not spoken clearly enough to also close off the separate habeas corpus route in federal district court.
- The Court relied on its reasoning in the companion case, INS v. St. Cyr, decided the same day, which reached the same conclusion about preserving habeas jurisdiction under the same statute.