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
Dignified Health Care Shouldn’t Stop With ICE Detention

Dignified Health Care Shouldn’t Stop With ICE Detention

Matthew Lopas and Jennifer Whitlock

Published Jun 9, 2026 Health care workers and advocates deserve tools that can help them navigate the rising presence of ICE in hospitals, which is why we put together our new resource: Advocating on Behalf of Patients in Immigration Custody....

New NILC Resource Helps Medical Staff Advocate for Patients in Immigration Custody

New NILC Resource Helps Medical Staff Advocate for Patients in Immigration Custody

Published Jun 9, 2026 The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) published new guidance today for hospitals and clinics caring for patients in immigration custody, a challenge that medical staff are increasingly facing as a result of the Trump administration’s...

Advocating On Behalf of Patients in Immigration Custody: A Resource for Health Care Providers and Medical Staff

Advocating On Behalf of Patients in Immigration Custody: A Resource for Health Care Providers and Medical Staff

Published Jun 9, 2026 This resource provides guidance for health care professionals on how to advocate and care for their patients with ICE and CBP agents present.

Lucy v. Skrmetti

Lucy v. Skrmetti

This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of H.B. 1704, a Tennessee bill that unlawfully usurps federal control over the U.S. immigration system.

Last update: Jun 8, 2026