In a closely watched decision that has drawn significant commentary from immigration law experts and Supreme Court observers alike, the High Court issued a 5–4 ruling on Tuesday in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi. Departing from the typical ideological alignments that define many modern Court decisions, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s three liberal members—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—to form a narrow majority. Their joint opinion resolved a deceptively technical question about how to count statutory deadlines under immigration law, but in so doing, it signaled potential shifts in the Court’s approach to administrative practices, statutory interpretation, and procedural fairness in immigration matters.
Case Background
Ramon Monsalvo Velázquez, a 32-year-old Colorado resident, was placed in removal proceedings in 2019 and granted “voluntary departure,” a form of relief that allows qualifying noncitizens to leave the United States on their own accord within a specified timeframe—thereby avoiding the more severe consequences of a removal order on their permanent record. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, certain immigrants with “good moral character” may elect voluntary departure, which traditionally carries a 60-day window to depart. Monsalvo, however, missed this deadline by a matter of days—arguing that because his statutory deadline fell on a weekend and a federal holiday, the countdown should have paused and resumed on the next business day. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) disagreed, as did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, each interpreting the 60-day period to run uninterrupted through weekends and holidays.
Monsalvo then petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve this conflict: should statutory deadlines under the voluntary departure provision be extended when they land on nonbusiness days? Given the potentially life-altering immigration consequences at stake, the Court granted certiorari, recognizing the broader significance of how deadlines are computed across federal statutes and regulations.
Legal Issue
At the heart of Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi was a narrow interpretive question: when a statute or regulation prescribes a specific number of days for an action—here, 60 days for voluntary departure—must that period extend to the next business day if it ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday? This issue intersects two fundamental principles of administrative law: (1) the plain meaning of statutory text, and (2) the “prior-construction canon,” which presumes Congress legislates against the backdrop of established administrative practices unless it clearly indicates an intention to depart from them.
Supreme Court Decision
In an opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that voluntary-departure deadlines must be extended to the next business day when they fall on a weekend or holiday. This interpretation overturned the BIA’s and Tenth Circuit’s rulings, vindicating Monsalvo’s argument that his statutory right to voluntary departure remained available until the next business day after his 60-day period would otherwise have expired.
The majority’s reasoning rested on the historical practice within administrative law and across various statutory schemes of treating “days” in deadline calculations as business days when counting toward deadlines. Gorsuch emphasized that since at least the 1950s, federal regulations—and, more broadly, rules of court procedure—have operated under this understanding, allowing deadlines to “slide” to the next business day if they land on nonbusiness days. Because Congress enacted the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which modified voluntary departure provisions, against the backdrop of these longstanding administrative practices, it was reasonable to conclude that lawmakers intended the same approach to deadlines in the immigration context.
Majority Opinion
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion anchored its analysis in several key considerations:
-
Historical Administrative Practice
Citing federal immigration regulations from the mid-20th century, Gorsuch demonstrated that immigration authorities themselves understood deadlines to exclude weekends and holidays. He noted parallel practices in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, both of which explicitly extend deadlines that fall on Saturdays, Sundays, or federal holidays to the next business day. -
The Prior-Construction Canon
The Court applied the principle that when Congress enacts new legislation against a backdrop of longstanding administrative interpretation, it is presumed that Congress adopts those interpretive conventions. Because Congress did not explicitly direct a departure from the established approach to deadline computation, the majority concluded that the voluntary departure provision should comport with preexisting administrative practice. -
Fair Notice and Predictability
Gorsuch underscored the importance of fair notice in administrative law. Immigrants navigating the removal process often lack legal representation and must rely on clear, consistent rules. Extending deadlines for weekends and holidays promotes predictability—ensuring that individuals know precisely when their statutory windows close. -
Textual Harmony
While emphasizing administrative context, the majority also performed a textual analysis. It found no clear indication in the statutory text that the 60-day period should count calendar days without exception. In the absence of a textual command to the contrary, the interpretation harmonized both with the statute and with parallel federal provisions.
Dissenting Opinions
The dissent, authored by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to varying extents, advanced a contrasting vision rooted in strict textualism and concerns about judicial overreach:
-
Plain-Text Interpretation
Justice Alito contended that the statute’s reference to “60 days” should be understood in its ordinary sense: a continuous count of calendar days, inclusive of weekends and holidays. He argued that imposing an exception based on administrative practice effectively rewrites clear statutory text, a role reserved for Congress rather than the judiciary. -
Judicial Restraint
The dissent warned against courts amending legislative schemes through interpretive canons when Congress could have specified a business-day rule explicitly. Alito observed that sympathy for individual circumstances should not justify judicial extension of statutory deadlines. -
Concerns About Precedential Scope
Justice Thomas, writing separately, would have remanded the case to the lower courts for further fact-finding on whether Monsalvo reasonably relied on the administrative practice. He cautioned that the Supreme Court acted too hastily in resolving the substantive issue without addressing procedural contingencies. -
Procedural Objections
Justice Barrett emphasized procedural flaws in how the case reached the Supreme Court, suggesting that certain jurisdictional or briefing requirements were not met, which should have precluded a ruling on the merits.
Statutory Interpretation Principles
This decision spotlights a perennial debate in statutory interpretation:
-
Textualism vs. Contextualism
Textualists like Justice Alito prioritize the ordinary meaning of statutory language, asserting that “60 days” unambiguously includes all calendar days. Contextualists favor broader interpretive tools—like prior administrative practice and legislative history—to discern congressional intent when the text is not explicit. -
Agency Deference
Although the majority did not expressly invoke the Chevron doctrine—which directs courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—it effectively endorsed deference to longstanding administrative practices. By presuming Congress legislated against that backdrop, the Court reinforced an agency-friendly posture in this narrow context. -
Procedural Fairness
The case underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair procedural rights for regulated parties, particularly those lacking robust legal representation. By extending deadlines that fall on nonbusiness days, the Court recognized the unique challenges faced by immigrants in navigating complex removal processes.
Administrative Practice Context
Gorsuch’s opinion meticulously catalogs how various federal regimes handle deadlines:
-
Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure: Both sets of rules contain explicit provisions postponing deadlines that fall on weekends or federal holidays to the next business day.
-
Administrative Regulations: Numerous federal agencies adopt similar conventions in rule-making, reflecting a cross-government consensus on the practical necessity of business-day calculations.
-
Tax Law and Other Statutes: Deadlines for tax filings, benefits applications, and licensing processes frequently incorporate business-day extensions, further attesting to the ubiquity of the practice.
By situating the voluntary departure statute within this broader canvas, the majority demonstrated that excluding weekends and holidays from deadline computations is neither novel nor confined to immigration law.
Historical Context of Voluntary Departure
The voluntary departure mechanism emerged in the mid-20th century as a humanitarian alternative to formal removal, allowing qualifying noncitizens to exit the U.S. at their own expense within a designated period. Congress codified and modified the provisions over successive immigration-reform laws, most notably in the IIRIRA of 1996, which tightened eligibility criteria and shortened departure windows. Despite these substantive changes, the fundamental structure of voluntary departure—and the procedural rules governing deadlines—remained constant.
For many immigrants, voluntary departure represents a critical opportunity to avoid the bars to reentry and the stigma of a formal removal order. Missing the departure window can trigger a removal order, a ten-year bar to reentry, and other collateral consequences affecting family unity and economic prospects. The Court’s ruling thus carries tangible significance for individuals whose lives—and those of their families—hinge on precise deadline calculations.
Broader Jurisprudential Implications
While Monsalvo Velazquez addresses a specific statutory question, its implications extend to other areas:
-
Impact on Future Immigration Cases
The alignment between Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts—coupled with the liberal bloc—may foreshadow how the Court approaches pending immigration disputes, such as challenges to birthright-citizenship directives and nationwide injunctions against executive policies. -
Administrative-Law Trends
Justice Gorsuch’s methodological consistency, evidenced in cases like Bostock v. Clayton County and Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, highlights his interest in harmonizing statutory text with administrative practice. His influential role may shape future decisions where deference to agency expertise and historical practice is at issue. -
Separation of Powers and Rule-Making
By emphasizing the prior-construction canon, the Court reaffirmed Congress’s power to direct policy while endorsing agencies’ legitimate role in fleshing out procedural details. At the same time, the dissent’s critique underscores the tension between legislative clarity and judicial interpretation—an ongoing dialogue in American jurisprudence.
Impact on Immigration Law
Practitioners and advocacy organizations have quickly assessed the decision’s practical consequences:
-
Clarified Deadline Computations
Immigration attorneys now have definitive guidance on computing voluntary departure periods, enabling more reliable counseling of clients and reducing the risk of inadvertent deadline misses. -
Procedural Fairness for Pro Se Litigants
The case demonstrates that even pro se petitioners can secure Supreme Court review when pivotal legal questions intersect with basic fairness. Monsalvo’s trajectory—from immigration court to the High Court—reinforces that access to justice remains a vital consideration in the removal context. -
Policy Considerations
Policymakers may revisit statutory language in future reform efforts to specify deadline conventions explicitly. Should Congress desire calendar-day runs, it can amend the statute accordingly; absent such action, the default business-day rule will continue to govern.
Future Cases on the Horizon
The Supreme Court’s immigration docket promises further scrutiny of executive-branch authority:
-
Birthright Citizenship Challenge
Set for argument on May 15, this case will confront the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the executive’s power to restrict birthright citizenship. Observers will watch whether Gorsuch and Roberts again side with the liberal justices or revert to a more conservative bloc. -
Nationwide Injunctions
Several district courts have issued nationwide orders halting executive immigration measures—from asylum restrictions to detention protocols. The Court’s willingness to review and potentially curtail such injunctions remains uncertain, but Monsalvo Velazquez may influence how justices weigh procedural fairness against federal-state equilibrium. -
Other Procedural Disputes
As the Trump administration pursues more aggressive border and removal policies, additional cases will likely arise over expedited removal, detention-without-bond authority, and asylum eligibility. The interpretive principles articulated in Monsalvo Velazquez may serve as guiding touchstones in these contexts.
Perspectives from Stakeholders
Reactions to the ruling have split along predictable lines:
-
Immigrant-Rights Advocates
Organizations such as the National Immigration Law Center lauded the decision as a necessary affirmation of procedural fairness. Extending deadlines for weekends and holidays represents a commonsense accommodation for vulnerable individuals. -
Enforcement-Oriented Groups
Entities like the Federation for American Immigration Reform criticized the Court’s extension of statutory deadlines as judicially imposed leniency—arguing it undermines the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws efficiently. -
Legal Community
Academics and practitioners emphasize the decision’s contribution to the law of statutory interpretation and administrative practice. Many view it as an exemplar of how courts can balance textual fidelity with contextual awareness.
Conclusion
Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi may appear at first glance to be a narrow technical ruling about deadline computation. Yet its ripple effects will reverberate across immigration law, administrative jurisprudence, and the Supreme Court’s internal alignments. By joining the liberal justices in affirming a business-day extension rule, Justices Gorsuch and Roberts demonstrated that interpretive methodology and concerns for fair notice can transcend predictable ideological divisions. As the Court readies itself for high-stakes immigration cases on birthright citizenship, nationwide injunctions, and executive authority, the principles distilled in this decision—respect for historical administrative practice, clarity of statutory construction, and procedural fairness—are likely to inform future deliberations. For Ramon Monsalvo Velázquez, the ruling offers not only a reprieve but also a testament to the importance of equal access to justice under federal immigration law. For the broader legal and immigrant communities, it underscores that even the most technical interpretive questions can carry profound human and institutional consequences.
Adrian Hawthorne is a celebrated author and dedicated archivist who finds inspiration in the hidden stories of the past. Educated at Oxford, he now works at the National Archives, where preserving history fuels his evocative writing. Balancing archival precision with creative storytelling, Adrian founded the Hawthorne Institute of Literary Arts to mentor emerging writers and honor the timeless art of narrative.