The U.S. Supreme Court case Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 2019 revolved around the interpretation of a statutory provision related to judicial review in immigration cases. The petitioners, two non-citizens who had been deported for committing certain crimes, argued that they should be allowed to apply for discretionary relief from removal under an old law because their deportations occurred before the repeal of that law. However, their applications were denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and Fifth Circuit court on grounds that these denials were factual determinations which courts could not review due to a statute barring judicial review of "questions of fact." The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that questions about whether an immigrant's circumstances meet legal standards are indeed 'questions of law,' thus can be reviewed by courts despite the statute.

In the dissenting opinion for Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the majority misinterpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). They contended that questions regarding whether an immigrant's motion to reopen their case was filed "within a reasonable time" are factual in nature rather than legal. The dissenters believed this interpretation is consistent with previous court rulings which have held that similar determinations involve fact-intensive inquiries not subject to judicial review. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to allow courts of appeals jurisdiction over these cases on grounds of raising constitutional concerns or involving questions of law. In their view, such broad interpretation could potentially open up many other discretionary decisions within immigration proceedings to judicial review.