Saved copy of
Letter from Barbosa da Cunha's counsel, September 25, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States · 2026-09-25
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.
Michael K.T. Tan
Deputy Director
Immigrants’ Rights Project
ACLU National Legal Department
September 25, 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 follow up on my letter of September 11, 2026, concerning the
dismissal of Genalo v. G.M., No. 25-886, which presented a similar constitutional
issue to that briefed in Putra. The Government has now filed a petition for certiorari
that presents the same constitutional issues as those presented in G.M. See Petition
for Certiorari before Judgment 27–30, Genalo v. D.C., No. 26-379 (Sup. Ct. Sept. 21,
2026); see also Letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor Gen., to Scott S. Harris, Clerk,
U.S. Supreme Court 2 (Sept. 11, 2026), https://perma.cc/DFX7-6287.
For the reasons stated by Respondents in Putra and Rhoney and Petitioners in
Buenrostro-Mendez, if this Court grants certiorari in D.C., it should grant only on the
statutory issue presented in Buenrostro-Mendez and Rhoney. 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).
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