The Catch.A permanent record of checked claims
RECORDSAVED COPY

Saved copy of

Letter from Barbosa da Cunha's counsel, September 14, 2026

Supreme Court of the United States · 2026-09-14

Back to source details

The saved file is a PDF document of 0.2 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.

Jump to the cited passage
<!-- page 1 -->
Michael K.T. Tan
                                                                         Deputy Director
                                                              Immigrants’ Rights Project
                                                         ACLU National Legal Department

September 14, 2026

VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL

Honorable Scott S. Harris
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Re:   Putra v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415
      Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104
      Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43

Dear Mr. Harris,

       I write to notify the Court formally of a recent development relevant to the
certiorari-stage briefing in the three above-captioned cases. On September 11, 2026,
the Court dismissed Genalo v. G.M., No. 25-886, which was to be argued on October
13, 2026. The dismissal of Genalo relates to the three pending certiorari petitions in
that the Respondents in Putra and Rhoney, and the Petitioners in Buenrostro-
Mendez, have argued, in part, that the Court should not take up the constitutional
claim presented by the Petitioners in the former two cases because a related
constitutional issue was before the Court in Genalo. See Br. in Opp’n 3, 19, 24–25,
Putra v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415 (Sup. Ct. Aug. 24, 2026); Resp. to Cert. Pet. 3,
17–19, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104 (Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2026); Cert. Pet.
4, 29–30, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43 (Sup. Ct. July 2, 2026).

       Notwithstanding the dismissal of Genalo, the Putra and Rhoney Respondents
and Buenrostro-Mendez Petitioners maintain that the Court should grant only on the
statutory issue presented in Buenrostro-Mendez and Rhoney for the reasons already
set forth in the briefs in these three cases. See Br. in Opp’n. 3–4, 18–23, Putra v.
Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415 (Sup. Ct. Aug. 24, 2026); Resp. to Cert. Pet. 18, Rhoney
v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104 (Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2026); Cert. Pet. 29–32,
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43 (Sup. Ct. July 2, 2026).




  425 California St., Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94104  m.tan@aclu.org  808-490-3806

---

<!-- page 2 -->
Respectfully Submitted,



                                                    _______________________________
                                                    Michael K.T. Tan
                                                    Counsel of Record for Respondents
                                                    Lopez-Campos, Barbosa da Cunha,
                                                    and Petitioners Buenrostro-Mendez

Cc:   D. John Sauer, Solicitor General




  425 California St., Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94104  m.tan@aclu.org  808-490-3806
Source reader

Source