How have federal appellate and Supreme Court rulings in 2025–2026 shaped the standard of evidence and constitutional claims available to LPRs in removal proceedings?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions have tightened and clarified procedural triggers that affect LPRs’ access to cancellation of removal while also opening new avenues to challenge agency procedure; lower appellate and BIA rulings in 2025–2026 have simultaneously narrowed some asylum-related cognizability questions and raised separation‑of‑powers issues that can change what constitutional claims LPRs may press in immigration court [1] [2] [3]. Practitioners report immediate tactical shifts—litigating defective Notices to Appear, pressing evidentiary preponderance standards in withholding/termination proceedings, and watching agency‑structure challenges that could reshape ALJ authority [4] [5] [6].
1. Supreme Court clarified the “stop‑time” and related filing triggers that govern cancellations of removal
The Court reaffirmed that procedural formalities matter: Niz‑Chavez requires that a single Notice to Appear contain the statutorily required information (including time and place) for the “stop‑time rule” to run against an alien’s continuous presence, directly affecting eligibility windows for both non‑LPR and LPR cancellation formulas [1] [4]. Separately, the Court’s rulings treating certain LPR status issues as analogous to inadmissibility under the cancellation statute have major consequences for LPRs seeking §240A relief, because the characterization of convictions or status defects can change whether time in status counts toward statutory residency requirements [2].
2. Appellate and BIA rulings tightened particular social‑group and asylum evidentiary contours that indirectly affect LPRs
The BIA’s 2025 precedential decision rejecting “perceived gang members” as a cognizable particular social group narrows forms of evidence that will carry asylum-type claims often raised in tandem with cancellation applications, meaning LPRs seeking to shore up discretionary relief with protection‑based arguments may find fewer statutory pathways recognized [1]. Appellate courts have continued to apply the ordinary civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard in termination and withholding contests, a burden the government must meet to terminate prior relief—decisions and orders reflect reliance on longstanding regulatory standards like 8 C.F.R. §208.24(f) [5].
3. Separation‑of‑powers litigation at the circuits is shifting the institutional backdrop for constitutional claims
Circuit rulings in 2025 challenging statutory removal protections for administrative agency officials—most notably a Fifth Circuit panel finding for‑cause protections for NLRB members and ALJs likely unconstitutional—signal an appetite in the federal courts to revisit agency structures; if similar reasoning reaches immigration adjudicators, LPRs could gain new constitutional arguments attacking EOIR’s structure or ALJ removal protections as undermining fair adjudication [3]. The Supreme Court’s active docket on separation‑of‑powers and administrative‑state issues means immigration‑system reforms could be reshaped from the high court down [7].
4. Practical effects on standards of evidence and available constitutional claims for LPRs
Practitioners advising LPRs now emphasize early challenge to defective NTAs because a properly served NTA is dispositive for stop‑time and eligibility calculations [4]. Where relief turns on criminal‑history characterizations or “inadmissible” labels, LPR respondents face closer scrutiny of documentary proof and statutory interpretation that can disqualify time in status for cancellation [2]. Concurrently, immigration lawyers and advocacy groups are building constitutional claims tied to defective procedures, agency jurisdiction, and ALJ independence—claims that draw on circuit decisions and could be ripe for Supreme Court review [6] [3].
5. Competing views and open questions
Advocates frame the rulings as protective of due process—forcing DHS to get NTAs correct and limiting executive overreach—while government and some commentators warn that narrowing doctrines like cognizable social groups and tightening admissibility labels leave fewer safety‑valves for long‑term residents with criminal histories [1] [2]. Major unresolved questions remain about how broadly separation‑of‑powers reasoning will be applied to immigration adjudication, and whether the Supreme Court will harmonize these disparate lines of authority in 2026; existing reporting and orders show the doctrinal battleground but do not yet resolve how courts will weigh remedies for individual LPRs [3] [7].