In a decision that has caught the attention of immigration law experts and court watchers alike, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling on Tuesday that saw unusual alignments across ideological lines. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s three liberal justices to form a majority in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi, a case centered on a seemingly technical question of deadline interpretation but with potentially broader implications for immigration jurisprudence.

The Ruling and Its Immediate Impact

The Court’s decision focused on the interpretation of a specific provision in immigration law that allows certain immigrants—those deemed to possess “good moral character”—to leave the United States voluntarily within a 60-day window rather than face formal removal proceedings. At issue was whether this 60-day deadline should be extended when it falls on a weekend or federal holiday.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that such deadlines must indeed be extended to the next business day, overturning contrary interpretations by both the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“When Congress adopts a new law against the backdrop of a ‘long-standing administrative construction,’ the Court generally presumes the new provision works in harmony with what came before,” Gorsuch wrote, invoking a principle of statutory interpretation that emphasizes continuity in legal frameworks.

Gorsuch specifically noted that since at least the 1950s, immigration regulations have treated deadlines with the understanding that the term “day” carries a specialized meaning, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when a deadline would otherwise fall on one of those days. He further observed that the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed by Congress, employs this same understanding.

The immediate beneficiary of this ruling is Ramon Monsalvo Velázquez, a 32-year-old Colorado resident who was ordered removed from the United States in 2019. Monsalvo had sought voluntary departure but missed the deadline by a matter of days—days that, under the Court’s new interpretation, should not have counted against his 60-day window due to their falling on non-business days.