Draft:Wilkinson v. Garland
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Maliner (talk | contribs) 2 months ago. (Update) |
 |
 | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (October 2023) |
 | |
| Argued November 28, 2023 Decided March 19, 2024 | |
|---|---|
| Full case name | Wilkinson v. Garland |
| Docket no. | 22-666 |
| Opinion announcement | ["WILKINSON v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. March 19, 2024. Retrieved March 19, 2024. Opinion announcement] |
| Holding | |
| U.S. Courts of Appeals can review denials of lawful permanent resident status. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Concurrence | Jackson |
| Dissent | Roberts |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
Wilkinson v. Garland, (Docket No. 22-666), is an immigration case with regards to lawful permanent resident status. Situ Kamu Wilkinson argued that his removal would present an "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship standard warranting his cancellation of removal; in Wilkinson's case, his son relies on him for financial and emotional support. The Immigration Judge ruled against Wilkinson, and the 3rd circuit ruled that it did not have the power to review the Immigration Judge's decision. In a 6-3 decision by Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that federal appeals courts can review denials of cancellation of removal. [1] [2]
After Wilkins v. United States (2023), this is the second time that Sonia Sotomayor was able to assign the majority opinion, as she was the most senior justice in the majority.
- ^ "Wilkinson v. Garland". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
- ^ "Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, March 19 (complete)". SCOTUSBlog. March 19, 2024. Retrieved March 19, 2024.