According to Breitbart, Esmelis Campos-Chaves, Varinder Singh, and Raul Daniel Mendez-Colín are three illegal aliens who were ordered to be deported after they failed to appear before immigration judges.

While the three men argued that the government had not provided them with adequate notice, the Supreme Court said otherwise in a five to four opinion released on Friday.  

Controversy over what it means to "receive notice"

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "[w]hen the Government seeks to remove an alien, it is required to notify the alien of the time and place of the removal hearings."

"Title 8 U. S. C. §1229(a) describes two types of notice—an initial notice to appear [NTA] under paragraph (1), and, 'in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of ' the removal proceedings, a notice of hearing under paragraph (2)," he explained.

"When an alien fails to appear at his removal hearing despite receiving such notice, he 'shall be ordered removed in absentia' if the Government can make certain showings. §1229a(b)(5)(A)," Alito continued.

"The alien can seek to have that order rescinded, however, if the alien can demonstrate that he 'did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of [§1229(a)],'" the justice noted.

New notice "met all of the requirements"

Alito acknowledged that all the defendants "received 'notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2)' for the hearings they missed, and thus their in absentia removal orders may not be rescinded on that ground."

Yet while the government agreed that "none of them received a compliant NTA," the trio did "receive a 'notice in accordance with paragraph . . . (2),' and each notice met all of the requirements for a notice under that provision."

"After receiving a defective NTA, each alien received a notice that provided a specific time and place for their removal proceedings," the justice stressed.

"Those notices provided 'new' times, and thereby 'change[d]' the time and place of their removal proceedings, within the meaning of §1229(a)(2)," Alito pointed out.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joins liberals in dissent

Alito went on to explain that he and his colleagues "granted certiorari in these cases to consider what it means to 'demonstrat[e] that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).' §1229a(b) (5)(C)(ii); 600 U. S. ___ (2023)."

"Each of the aliens in these cases argues that he may seek rescission because he did not receive a notice to appear that complies with paragraph (1)," Alito recalled.

"We hold that, to rescind an in absentia removal order on the ground that the alien 'did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2),' the alien must show that he did not receive notice under either paragraph for the hearing at which the alien was absent and ordered removed," Alito went on to assert.

Breitbart observed that while four of the Supreme Court's other Republican appointees agreed that the aliens "cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice," Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberal justices in voicing dissent.