The SCOTUS Shortlist and Immigration: What Their Previous Rulings Reveal

President Biden identified a shortlist of exceptionally well-qualified Black women to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. We researched and analyzed each potential nominee’s past rulings in immigration-related cases.

Published Feb 18, 2022

Based on public reporting, President Joe Biden has identified a shortlist of highly credentialed and exceptionally well-qualified Black women – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Leondra Kruger, and Judge J. Michelle Childs – to serve on the United States Supreme Court following Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement. With distinguished service in private practice, public service, and on the bench, each of these women would bring a wealth of diverse experience to the Court.

As President Biden evaluates each candidate, he will assess how her past writings and decisions clarify her judicial philosophy, and how that philosophy might inform her rulings if confirmed.

Given the increasing frequency with which federal courts are called upon to resolve questions of immigration law and immigrants’ rights, it is in the immigrant justice movement’s interest to do the same.

This is especially true since Congress has functionally abdicated its traditional role in immigration policy through inertia and inaction. Presidential administrations of both parties increasingly rely on executive action to advance their immigration priorities, and disputes over the legality of their actions often wind up in court. At the state level, Republican officials have either implemented policies that harm immigrant communities or filed suit against pro-immigrant policies. Inevitably, these challenges make their way to our federal courts – and often all the way to the Supreme Court.

Immigrant justice advocates understand the impact Supreme Court decisions have firsthand – from positive rulings on DACA and the census to negative decisions on the Muslim Ban and Remain in Mexico. And while this nominee will not alter the current balance of the Supreme Court, she will have a hand in shaping the law around immigrants’ rights for decades to come.

At this crucial moment, the National Immigration Law Center has carefully researched and analyzed each potential nominee’s past rulings in immigration-related cases.

Read More
Related
CLINIC v. Rubio

CLINIC v. Rubio

This lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries.

Last update: Aug 21, 2026

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s Discriminatory 75-Country Visa Ban

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump’s Discriminatory 75-Country Visa Ban

Published Aug 21, 2026 In a major victory for families, fairness, and the rule of law, a federal court in New York struck down the Trump administration’s blanket, nationality-based “public charge” ban on immigrant visa processing for people from 75...

Community Alert: Traveling on “advance parole” now triggers 3- and 10-year bars

Community Alert: Traveling on “advance parole” now triggers 3- and 10-year bars

Published Aug 17, 2026 The Board of Immigration Appeals has changed the consequences of traveling on “advance parole.” If you are thinking about traveling outside the U.S. on “advance parole” and you have been in the U.S. without permission for 180+ days, now...

NILC Statement on ICE’s Plan to Buy Electric Shock Gloves

NILC Statement on ICE’s Plan to Buy Electric Shock Gloves

Published Aug 12, 2026 Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center, issued the following statement in response to reports that ICE is planning to spend up to $20 million on electric shock...