Riley v. Bondi

The Court applied the plenary power doctrine to Riley's challenge, holding that Congress's broad authority over immigration permits categorical statutory eligibility bars regardless of an individual noncitizen's unique circumstances. Although Riley presented a compelling profile—a decades-long lawful permanent resident with family ties and only a drug conviction to weigh against his equitable case for cancellation—the majority held that the statutory bar applies uniformly without requiring a Mathews-style individualized assessment of the private interest, risk of error, and government interest in uniform immigration rules. The Court rejected the argument that due process entitled Riley to a discretionary hearing on his particular equities, finding instead that Congress's blunt eligibility rules prevail over procedural fairness once a statutory disqualifier is met. This approach preserved Congress's plenary authority at the cost of categorical treatment that prevented Riley's longstanding residence and family connections from receiving consideration.