On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court published its opinion in Nasrallah v. Barr [3]. The case concerned judicial review of an order under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT) of whether or not to grant relief to an applicant for protection. CAT relief is granted to a noncitizen if he or she demonstrates a likelihood of torture in the country of removal. The U.S. Government sought to remove the petitioner after he pled guilty to receiving stolen property, but the petitioner applied for CAT relief to avoid going back to Lebanon. The petitioner’s application for CAT relief was granted by the Immigration Judge, but on appeal the order was vacated. The Eleventh Circuit declined to review the petitioner’s challenge to the factual basis for the CAT order on the basis that because the petitioner had committed a crime falling under § 1252(a)(2)(D) such review was not possible. The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 majority, reversed, holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) “do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order” and that “A CAT order is distinct from a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of a final order of removal.” Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that because Congress has not explicitly provided for such a review, it is not permissible.