No. of Recommendations: 5
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has held (by a 7-2 vote) that expedited removal proceedings without a judicial hearing are constitutional, and do not violate the Suspension Clause relating to Habeas Corpus:
So that was a Sri Lankan 25 yards inside the border, who claimed to have fear because he was Tamil. If we judge that being Tamil is not enough to warrant asylum in the United States we can just insert him back across the border after taking fingerprints, etc., I assume. I think under the old pre-Trump rules we were doing this to around 15% of the people at the border who either didn't claim fear, or we judged their fear to not be asylum worthy. So this ruling in 2020 seems to affirm what was going on before, am I correct in read it that way? Ask AI! Voila!
AI Overview
No, the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam did not affirm existing precedent. Instead, it significantly narrowed the scope of judicial review for asylum seekers at the border, overturning a lower court ruling and departing from how some scholars and legal advocates interpreted the law. The ruling limited the rights of individuals subjected to "expedited removal"—a process that allows immigration officials to quickly deport people apprehended near the border without proper documentation.
How the ruling changed the legal landscape
Limited the availability of habeas corpus: The Supreme Court found that a habeas corpus petition, which typically secures release from unlawful detention, could not be used by Thuraissigiam to obtain a new asylum hearing. The Court ruled that seeking additional administrative review fell outside the traditional understanding of the writ of habeas corpus as it existed when the Constitution was ratified.
Rejected due process rights for recent border crossers: For immigrants seeking initial entry, the Court reaffirmed longstanding precedent that their procedural rights are limited to what Congress provides by statute. The ruling expanded this principle by treating Thuraissigiam, who had crossed 25 yards into U.S. territory, "as if stopped at the border," and thus not entitled to greater due process protections.
Overturned the Ninth Circuit's decision: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in Thuraissigiam's favor, finding that the statutory limit on judicial review for expedited removals was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming Congress's authority to limit such review.
Reinterpreted previous cases: The majority opinion reinterpreted prior rulings, such as INS v. St. Cyr, to argue they only confirmed that immigrants could challenge unlawful detention—not seek additional administrative relief through habeas corpus. This was seen by some as a restrictive reinterpretation of the Suspension Clause.
The consequences of the decision
For asylum seekers, the decision significantly reduced oversight of the expedited removal process, which critics noted was already susceptible to error. The ruling cemented the government's ability to limit judicial involvement in these cases, leaving non-citizens with fewer avenues to challenge their deportation orders.
