Riley v. Bondi: Supreme Court Eases Path for Immigration Appeals

(LibertySociety.com) – Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. Bondi deals a significant blow to Biden’s deportation policies, creating new pathways for illegal immigrants to challenge removal orders.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 30-day deadline for appealing deportation orders is not a rigid jurisdictional requirement
• The decision allows illegal immigrants to challenge deportation orders even after deadlines have passed by claiming “extraordinary circumstances”
• Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national convicted of drug trafficking and firearms offenses, brought the case to avoid deportation
• The ruling creates another loophole in America’s already struggling immigration enforcement system
• Conservative Justice Thomas warned the Fourth Circuit might still lack jurisdiction for other reasons

Supreme Court Creates New Loophole for Illegal Immigrants Fighting Deportation

In a decision that threatens to further weaken America’s immigration enforcement capabilities, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 26, 2025, that the 30-day deadline for appealing deportation orders is not a strict jurisdictional requirement. The ruling in Riley v. Bondi effectively creates a new pathw

The case centered on Pierre Riley, a Jamaican national who entered the United States on a tourist visa in 1995 and simply decided to stay illegally. While in the country unlawfully, Riley was convicted of serious crimes including drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Despite these convictions, which should have made him a priority for removal, Riley sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to avoid deportation to Jamaica, claiming he would face torture if returned to his home country.

Judicial Activism Opens New Avenues for Deportation Delays

The Court’s liberal-leaning majority opinion, authored by Justice Alito, rejected the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation that the 30-day filing deadline was jurisdictional. By reclassifying this deadline as a mere “claim-processing rule,” the Court has effectively allowed illegal immigrants to bypass the clear statutory deadline Congress established. This judicial reinterpretation means that courts now have the flexibility to consider late filings under vague “equitable exceptions,” such as alleged extraordinary circumstances or even attorney errors.

This ruling directly contradicts the plain language of the law that Congress passed to ensure expeditious resolution of immigration cases. The 30-day deadline was specifically designed to prevent endless litigation and delays in the deportation process. Now, with this new loophole, illegal immigrants facing deportation have yet another tool to potentially remain in the country indefinitely while their cases drag through an already backlogged court system at taxpayer expense.

A Criminal Alien’s Case Becomes Precedent

The facts of Riley’s case highlight the absurdity of America’s broken immigration system. After entering legally but overstaying his visa, Riley committed serious crimes including drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Rather than being promptly deported after serving his sentence, Riley was able to remain in the country while pursuing various legal challenges to his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied his CAT claim on May 31, 2022, but Riley continued fighting his deportation through the federal courts.

The Fourth Circuit had properly dismissed Riley’s petition, ruling that the statutory 30-day deadline for filing an appeal is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. This common-sense interpretation would have allowed for the expeditious deportation of a criminal alien. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision means that Riley’s case will now return to the Fourth Circuit for further consideration, potentially allowing him to remain in the country even longer despite his illegal status and criminal record.

Conservative Justice Offers Potential Path Forward

In a glimmer of hope for immigration enforcement advocates, Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion that may provide an alternative basis for dismissing Riley’s case. Thomas emphasized that the Fourth Circuit might still lack jurisdiction because CAT orders are only reviewable “as part of” a final removal order—a separate issue that could still prevent Riley from successfully challenging his deportation.

“The Fourth Circuit might still lack jurisdiction because Riley was seeking review of a CAT order, which is only reviewable as part of a final order of removal. Since the CAT order in this case was not part of a final removal order, the Fourth Circuit might not have jurisdiction,” Justice Thomas noted in his concurring opinion.

This legal nuance could potentially limit the damage of the Court’s broader ruling by providing lower courts with a basis to dismiss similar appeals on alternative jurisdictional grounds. However, the majority opinion’s reclassification of the 30-day deadline as non-jurisdictional remains a significant blow to efficient immigration enforcement.

Another Obstacle to Enforcing Immigration Law

The practical implications of this ruling are far-reaching and deeply concerning for Americans who believe in secure borders and the rule of law. By making the 30-day deadline flexible rather than firm, the Court has created yet another avenue for illegal immigrants to challenge their deportations and remain in the country indefinitely. This ruling comes at a time when the immigration court system is already overwhelmed with a backlog of millions of cases, and deportations have plummeted despite record-breaking illegal border crossings.

While proponents claim this ruling “safeguards due process,” the reality is that it further undermines America’s ability to enforce its immigration laws. The 30-day deadline was not an unreasonable “jurisdictional trap” but rather a sensible time limit established by Congress to ensure timely resolution of immigration cases. By judicial fiat, the Supreme Court has effectively rewritten this clear statutory requirement, creating more uncertainty and delay in an immigration system that is already failing American citizens.

As deportations continue to lag while illegal entries soar, this ruling represents yet another example of how activist courts are hampering efforts to restore order to America’s immigration system. The American people deserve immigration policies that prioritize national security, public safety, and the rule of law—not endless loopholes that reward those who violate our nation’s borders and laws.

​Copyright 2025, LibertySociety.com