Justice Jackson authors unanimous SCOTUS opinion handing Trump an immigration win

Jackson, a Biden appointee and one of three liberal justices on the high court, wrote that immigration laws require federal courts to use a "substantial-evidence standard" when reviewing immigration judges' decisions about whether an asylum seeker could face "persecution" if deported. 

Jackson emphasized the high bar courts must meet before overturning an immigration judge's findings, potentially making it more difficult for migrants to challenge their deportations as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration."The agency's determination … is generally 'conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,'" Jackson wrote.

The migrant can appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is also housed within the executive branch, and can then appeal that decision to the federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

The decision in this case, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, affirmed that the judicial branch must largely defer to the executive branch's findings about whether the migrant would suffer persecution if deported, rather than start from scratch and conduct its own review.

The case centered on asylum claims made by Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana and his wife and child, all of whom were Salvadoran nationals who entered the country illegally in 2021 and then applied for asylum.

Urias-Orellana had argued that a "sicario," or hitman, had targeted him since 2016, after shooting two of his half-brothers and vowing to kill family members. The immigration judge found him credible but said the threats and incidents he described did not establish a valid fear of future persecution.

The Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing whether the 1st Circuit examined the immigration judge's decision thoroughly enough. The high court concluded that the 1st Circuit rightly leaned heavily on the immigration judge's determination.