A federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)) provides that a defendant charged with the crime of unlawfully re-entering the United States may not challenge the validity of the underlying removal order unless he demonstrates that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies; (2) he was improperly deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of the removal order; and (3) the entry of the removal order was fundamentally unfair.

In a unanimous ruling yesterday in U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, rejected Ninth Circuit precedent that defendants were excused from proving the first two requirements if they were not convicted of an offense that made them removable. The Ninth Circuit precedent conflicted with rulings from all seven of the other federal appellate courts that had addressed the question.

The Ninth Circuit’s rogue position dates back to an opinion in 2004 (U.S. v. Pallares-Galan) by—gee, what a surprise!—Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Justice Sotomayor takes only a short paragraph to set forth how the Ninth Circuit’s “interpretation is incompatible with the [statutory] text.”

I might be losing track, but I think that this is the third time that the Supreme Court has unanimously reversed Reinhardt since his death more than three years ago. (Here are the previous two I have in mind.)