Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-459_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

PEREIRA v. SESSIONS 

Syllabus 

parting from the statute’s clear text.  In a final attempt to salvage its
atextual interpretation, the Government turns to the alleged statuto-
ry  purpose  and  legislative  history  of  the  stop-time  rule.    Even  for 
those who consider statutory purpose and legislative history, howev-
er,  neither  supports  the  Government’s  position.    Requiring  the  Gov-
ernment to furnish time-and-place information in a notice to appear
is  entirely  consistent  with  Congress’  stated  objective  of  preventing 
noncitizens  from  exploiting  administrative  delays  to  accumulate 
lengthier periods of continuous precedent.   Pp. 13–20. 

 866 F. 3d 1, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, 
JJ., joined.    KENNEDY, J., filed  a  concurring  opinion.   ALITO,  J.,  filed  a 
dissenting opinion.