The case Barton v. Barr, 2019 revolved around the issue of deportation under U.S. immigration law. Andre Martello Barton, a lawful permanent resident from Jamaica who had been living in the United States for over three decades was ordered to be deported due to criminal offenses committed during his initial years in the country. The central question was whether these crimes made him ineligible for cancellation of removal - an option available to some non-citizens facing deportation if they have lived continuously in the U.S for at least seven years before committing an offense that renders them removable or "inadmissible". The Supreme Court ruled against Barton with a 5-4 decision stating that he could not apply for this relief because one of his offenses fell within seven years after his admission into the country and thus rendered him "inadmissible" even though it did not lead directly to his removability.

In the dissenting opinion for Barton v. Barr, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was overly broad and could lead to unjust results. She contended that a lawful permanent resident should not be subject to deportation based on an offense committed years ago if they have since lived a life free from criminal activity. The justice also highlighted inconsistencies in how different courts interpret "inadmissibility," leading to unequal treatment of immigrants across jurisdictions. Furthermore, she expressed concern over the potential for this ruling to disrupt lives and separate families without sufficient justification or consideration of individual circumstances.