Last April, the Supreme Court set new precedent in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. The case centered on the contested legal status of Agusto Niz-Chavez, who extended his stay in the United States after fleeing violence in Guatemala. Federal statute requires immigrants to receive a notice to appear before their deportation hearing. Instead of relaying information essential to Mr. Niz-Chavez’s hearing in one document, the government sent piecemeal messages, causing mass confusion. Interestingly, the entire debate between the government and Niz-Chavez’s attorneys focused on one word. Could the requirement to send “a” notice be interpreted broadly, permitting the government to share information over several months, thus leaving the petitioner ignorant of his rights? Or does “a” notice require the government to notify immigrants facing deportation hearings expeditiously, under the aegis of one clear text?
With Justice Neil Gorsuch penning the decision, a 6-3 majority Court ruled that the government must respect the definition of “a” as one singular notice in the federal statute. Defense of a simple article unlocked Mr. Niz-Chavez’s right to due process and will forever protect immigrants from bureaucratic malfeasance in the future.
One wonders if the authors of two recent letters to the editor, which decried the Church’s legislation against use of the pronoun “We” in baptism, would find the Court’s jurisprudence a “bureaucratic rule completely divorced from reality” (Weiss, 3/31) or even “heartless” (Rinaldi, 3/10). As Justice Gorsuch wrote, one word meant everything to protect the rights of immigrants. “This dispute may seem semantic,” Gorsuch observed, “focused on a single word. But words are how the law constrains power.” If the object of speech is truth, then what we say matters. Signification applies even more importantly in sacramental theology. Using the pronoun “We” in baptism belies the incontrovertible truth of divine agency. Christ, the Divine Agent, uses the instrumentality of ministers (whether clergy or laity) to effect sanctifying grace. The Church does not have the authority to ignore sacramental realism in the name of pastoral sensitivity. Doing so benefits no one. She has a responsibility to work for the salvation of souls. Catechumens have a right to proper use of valid formulae, just like Mr. Niz-Chavez. We wouldn’t object to a person’s rights under the law. Why should we risk a person’s eternal salvation? That seems heartless, and divorced from reality.
