The U.S. Supreme Court has proven to be a new source of drama given how the conservative majority decides on certain issues, and especially when conservative justices break away from the pack and side with the liberal justices.
According to Newsweek, Justice Neil Gorsuch shocked his colleagues and Republicans across Washington D.C. this week after he joined liberal justices in a dissent regarding an opinion on one of the latest immigration cases.
President Donald Trump's immigration policies have been wrapped up in the judicial system since Day One of his second term in office. Many of those cases are filtering up to the Supreme Court, and those decisions have been coming down mostly in Trump's favor as of late.
It was on Thursday, when the high court made a ruling on Riley v. Bondi that Justice Gorsuch broke away from his conservative colleagues on a ruling that favored the Trump administration.
Newsweek recapped what the case involved and how the Trump administration had to fight to make it happen.
The outlet noted:
The case centers around Pierre Riley, a man from Jamaica facing deportation from the United States who had been convicted on drug charges in 2008. After his release in 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and sought his removal under a final administrative removal order (FARO).
Notably, Riley didn't contest his deportation from the United States, except he argued that he should not be returned to Jamaica, invoking the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
He claimed that he could be killed by a drug kingpin should he be returned to his home country.
Newsweek added:
An immigration judge sent his case to a "withholding-only proceeding," which decided whether he could be removed to his home country. During that proceeding, a judge granted deferral of his removal to Jamaica over those concerns.
Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), "which opted to enforce the earlier removal order," the outlet noted.
Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump, joined three liberal justices in dissenting from the case.
"The question is when Riley should have petitioned for judicial review of the Board's order," the dissent reads.
"Was his petition due 30 days after the Government first notified him he would be deported, well over a year before the Board issued the order Riley sought to challenge? Or was it instead due 30 days after the order denying his claim for deferral of removal? The answer is clear: One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists."
It'll be interesting to see what the final decision the case will be.
