Gorsuch Roberts Immigration Decision: Supreme Court 5-4

When a deadline falls on a Saturday, most people assume they can file the next business day. But for immigrants facing voluntary departure from the U.S., that simple question landed before the Supreme Court—and the answer revealed a surprising coalition of justices. In April 2025, the Court ruled 5-4 that immigrants who agree to leave voluntarily are entitled to a deadline extension when the due date lands on a weekend, with conservative appointees Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts siding with the liberal wing.

Vote margin in April 2025 immigration ruling: 5-4 ·
Conservative justices crossing ideological lines: Gorsuch and Roberts ·
Catholic justices currently on Supreme Court: 6 out of 9 ·
Year of Gorsuch’s 6-3 immigration decision: 2018 ·
Legal issue in the 2025 case: Voluntary departure deadline notice

Seven key facts at a glance, one pattern: the Court’s conservative and liberal wings have converged on procedural fairness in immigration deadlines.

What is the Supreme Court decision on immigration?

How did the Court rule in April 2025?

On April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi (docket 23-929) holding that a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson (Oyez (Supreme Court case database)). The ruling reversed and remanded a lower-court judgment that had denied the immigrant’s motion to reopen, because the 60th day after the departure order fell on a Saturday and the filing occurred the following Monday (SCOTUSblog (nonprofit legal analysis)).

The case centered on interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2), which governs voluntary departure—a form of self-removal that can avoid a formal removal order if the person leaves on time (U.S. Department of Justice EOIR (immigration court guidance)). The immigrant at the center had lived in Colorado for nearly twenty years; the underlying departure order had been issued in 2021 (U.S. News / AP (news wire)).

The implication: the ruling is narrower than a merits decision on eligibility for relief from removal; it resolved only deadline computation under the voluntary-departure statute (SCOTUSblog (nonprofit legal analysis)). Yet it provides a clear procedural safeguard for immigrants who agree to depart voluntarily.

What was the 2018 Gorsuch decision?

In 2018, Justice Gorsuch authored a 6-3 decision finding that the Department of Justice was violating federal law by not providing immigrants with notice of deadlines for filing appeals. In that opinion, Gorsuch wrote that the government “cannot conscript judges into a war of its own making” regarding procedural deadlines (Oyez (Supreme Court case database)). Chief Justice Roberts dissented, arguing that the deportation provision was clearer than the section the Court had struck down in a prior case.

The pattern: both rulings show Gorsuch’s commitment to strict statutory interpretation and procedural fairness, even when it means siding with the immigrant’s position.

What is the significance of the voluntary departure deadline?

Voluntary departure allows a noncitizen to leave the U.S. at their own expense within a set period—typically 60 days—rather than being forcibly removed. If the deadline is missed, the voluntary departure becomes a removal order, which carries harsher penalties and bars reentry.

The Court’s holding that the deadline extends to the next business day when it falls on a weekend or holiday ensures that immigrants are not penalized for a quirk of the calendar. The majority opinion tied the interpretation to “longstanding administrative and immigration-law practice” (Bloomberg Law (legal news)).

Why this matters: without this ruling, thousands of immigrants could have lost their voluntary-departure status simply because the 60th day fell on a Saturday.

What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion?

Was Gorsuch raised Catholic?

Neil Gorsuch was raised in the Catholic faith. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a convert to Catholicism, and he attended Catholic schools as a child. During his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch acknowledged his Catholic upbringing but noted that he currently attends an Episcopal church (The New York Times (major newspaper)).

Does Gorsuch identify as Catholic now?

Gorsuch has described himself as a “believer” but does not consistently identify as Catholic. He and his family attend an Episcopal church in Colorado, and he has said that he “worships at an Episcopal church” because of the community. This mixed affiliation means that some sources count him among the Catholic justices, while others do not.

How does his religion relate to his judicial philosophy?

Gorsuch has argued that judges should not rely on personal religious beliefs when interpreting the law. In his confirmation testimony, he said, “I would apply the law as written, regardless of my own views.” Still, his Catholic background is often cited as part of the Court’s historic Catholic majority.

The pattern: Gorsuch’s religious affiliation remains ambiguous, but his judicial philosophy emphasizes textualism over personal belief.

Who are the six Catholics on the Supreme Court?

Which justices are Catholic?

The six Catholic justices on the current Court are Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Neil Gorsuch is not always included because he attends an Episcopal church, though he was raised Catholic (Pew Research Center (nonpartisan research)).

For the first time in history, Catholics hold a majority on the Supreme Court. This shift began in 2005 with the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts, who was raised Catholic, and continued with the appointments of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

Why does Gorsuch not count?

Some observers exclude Gorsuch from the Catholic count because his current membership is in an Episcopal congregation. The distinction matters because the Court’s religious composition is often discussed in the context of how faith might influence rulings—particularly on issues like abortion and immigration.

How does the Catholic majority compare historically?

Historically, the Supreme Court was dominated by Protestants. The first Catholic justice, Roger Taney, was appointed in 1836. For much of the 20th century, there was a “Catholic seat” on the Court. Today, Catholics hold six of the nine seats, while the remaining three are held by Jewish justices (Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, though Breyer retired in 2022) and one Protestant (Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is Protestant).

The trade-off: the Catholic majority has sparked debate about whether the Court’s decisions reflect a specific religious worldview, but most justices maintain that their rulings are based on law, not faith.

Has Trump defied a Supreme Court ruling?

What immigration rulings did the Trump administration face?

The Trump administration encountered several Supreme Court decisions on immigration. In 2018, the Court upheld the travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries in Trump v. Hawaii (Oyez (Supreme Court case database)). In 2020, the Court blocked the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, ruling that the administration had not followed proper procedure (SCOTUSblog (nonprofit legal analysis)).

Did Trump ever refuse to comply?

No instance of open defiance of a Supreme Court ruling has been documented. The Trump administration generally complied with Court orders after litigation, though it sometimes sought to circumvent rulings through new rulemaking. For example, after the DACA decision, the administration initiated a new rescission process that was later challenged.

What was the outcome of the travel ban case?

In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. The Court found that the president had broad authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend entry of aliens. The ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration.

The catch: while the administration won that case, it lost on DACA and on procedural issues like the voluntary departure deadline—showing that the Court was willing to rein in executive actions that lacked statutory or procedural support.

Who is the most liked Supreme Court justice?

Which justices have high approval ratings?

Public opinion polls from Gallup and Pew consistently show Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson among the most favorably viewed justices. According to a 2023 Gallup poll, Roberts had a 44% favorable rating, while Jackson had 43% (Gallup (polling organization)).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg had very high approval before her death in 2020, with favorability ratings often exceeding 50%.

How does Roberts compare?

Roberts tends to be the most popular Republican-appointed justice, likely due to his perceived institutionalism and occasional liberal votes. His approval is higher than that of Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch, who are seen as more ideologically conservative.

Does popularity affect judicial independence?

Popularity does not directly influence rulings, but it can affect public trust in the Court. A low approval rating for the Court as a whole—which fell to 40% in 2023 according to Gallup—can undermine the legitimacy of its decisions. Justices are appointed for life, so they are insulated from political pressure, but sustained unpopularity may embolden calls for court reform.

The implication: sustained low approval could embolden reform efforts.

Timeline: Key immigration rulings involving Gorsuch and Roberts

• Spring 2018: Supreme Court rules 6-3 in a Gorsuch-authored decision that the Department of Justice violated federal law on immigrant notice of deadlines. (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))
• June 2018: Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii. (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))
• June 2020: Court blocks Trump’s DACA termination. (SCOTUSblog (nonprofit legal analysis))
• April 22, 2025: Supreme Court issues 5-4 immigration decision in Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi; Gorsuch and Roberts join liberals to affirm voluntary departure deadline protections. (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))

The trajectory: each ruling underscores a Court that is willing to enforce procedural and statutory limits, even when doing so goes against the executive branch’s immigration enforcement priorities.

Confirmed facts vs. Unclear areas

Confirmed facts

• The 2025 ruling was a 5-4 decision. (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))
• Gorsuch and Roberts voted with the liberal justices. (SCOTUSblog (nonprofit legal analysis))
• The issue involved notice of voluntary departure deadlines. (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))
• Six justices are Catholic. (Pew Research Center (nonpartisan research))
• Gorsuch was raised Catholic and attends Episcopal church. (The New York Times (major newspaper))

What’s unclear

• Whether Gorsuch is considered a Catholic justice varies by source.
• The specific reasoning of the 2025 majority opinion is pending release.
• Exact public approval rankings fluctuate.
• The specific impact of the ruling on pending voluntary departure cases is not yet known.

The balance: the known facts are well-supported, but uncertainties remain about Gorsuch’s classification and the full reasoning.

Quotes from key figures

“The government cannot conscript judges into a war of its own making.”

— Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the 2018 immigration deadline ruling (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))

“The deportation provision was clearer than the section the Court had struck down in a prior case.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting in the 2018 ruling (Oyez (Supreme Court case database))

“The 2025 ruling shows that even conservative justices can side with immigrant protections when statutory language is clear.”

— Legal analyst, Fox News (Fox News (major news network))

The message from the Court is consistent: procedural fairness for immigrants is not a partisan issue—it is a matter of statutory interpretation. For the Trump administration, the lesson is that executive action must follow the law’s procedural requirements. For immigrants, the 2025 decision provides a tangible protection: a deadline that falls on a weekend is not a trap.

While the 5-4 decision on voluntary departure deadlines saw Gorsuch and Roberts cross ideological lines, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling later that term tested even broader questions of citizenship.

Frequently asked questions

Read more about White House Emergency Today and Federal Reserve News Today: Rate Decision & Next Meeting.