In a 6–3 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled against the federal government, holding that deportation hearing notices need to be in a single document.

[3] Agusto Niz-Chavez, an unauthorized immigrant from Guatemala, entered the United States in 2005,[4] fleeing after he had been threatened with his land being seized and family killed.

[10] The highly technical[6] case was previously titled Niz-Chavez v. Barr,[11]: 4  having had its oral arguments during the Trump administration.

Following oral arguments, SCOTUSblog's Jayesh Rathod predicted that there was a good chance of "another lopsided decision in favor of noncitizens", referring to Pereira.

In this case, the law's terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him.

But the Court today nonetheless imposes a fourth, atextual single-document requirement for the notice to stop the 10-year clock.

Numerous requests to stop deportations where immigrants were not told a venue or date were granted by judges as a result of the case; experts warned that the courts would be "flooded" with these motions.

[17] Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School, predicted that there would be greater delays in people being placed into the deportation process.

[18] Legal analysts drew parallels between Niz-Chavez and Bostock v. Clayton County, highlighting that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were again at odds despite having both been Trump appointees, former law clerks to Anthony Kennedy, and attendees of Georgetown Preparatory School.