7-2 vote
Asylum-seekers are not entitled to habeas corpus
Reversed the 9th Cir, again
This is a big win
Judges matter
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Supreme Court Opinion
" .... Amid a surge of illegal immigration of Mexican citizens at the southern border in the mid-1990s, Congress created a new method for CBP to respond to the influx of immigrants it was arresting, allowing the agency to deport select immigrants within days instead of spending weeks or longer in detention. The process of “expedited removal” allowed federal law enforcement at the country’s borders to return anyone to their country who had been arrested within 100 miles of the border within the past two weeks for illegally entering the U.S. Immigrants eligible for expedited removal would no longer be given the right to counsel, a full immigration hearing, or the ability to appeal a decision.
“The expedited removal process provides drastically truncated administrative procedures, and virtually no judicial review of purely legal claims, and even of claims that the removal would violate the Constitution,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt wrote in a brief for the case.
Expedited removal was largely used for Mexicans who had been arrested trying to enter the U.S., but it was not intended for asylum-seekers. When Thuraissigiam did not pass the CBP officer’s credible fear interview, which is the first step in making an asylum claim before a federal immigration judge, he was slated to be returned to Sri Lanka quickly, unable to appeal the low-ranking officer’s decision...."