Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Last updated
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2020
Decided June 25, 2020
Full case nameDepartment of Homeland Security, et al., petitioners v. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam
Docket no. 19-161
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 1959
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, Thuraissigiam v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 287 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2018); reversed, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019); cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 427 (2019).
Holding
The limits set by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 on review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C.   § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the Suspension Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas
ConcurrenceBreyer (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause. [1] [2]

Contents

The Department of Homeland Security placed Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam into "expedited removal" proceedings after Thuraissigiam was apprehended 25 yards (23 m) from the southern U.S. border after crossing it illegally. [3] Thuraissigiam, a Tamil former resident of Sri Lanka, pled for asylum asserting that he fled his country to "escape torture, beatings, and likely death". [4] An immigration officer did not find his fear of persecution credible, and an immigration judge agreed with the officer's findings.

Thuraissigiam, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which a U.S. district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that limits the judicial review of decisions made by immigration officers. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the section of the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Suspension Clause.

On June 25, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court found that Thuraissigiam's claim for habeas corpus, to seek additional administrative review of his asylum claim, was beyond the scope established for habeas corpus in the Constitution, to secure release from unlawful detention. The majority opinion further rejected the argument that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment also compels judicial review of Thuraissigiam's claim.

Background

Federal immigration statute

The Suspension Clause of Article One of the United States Constitution states that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except when a suspension may be required in cases of invasion or rebellion. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which designated certain undocumented immigrants as subject to "expedited removal". [1] According to Linda Greenhouse, writing in The New York Times , expedited removal is intended for immigrants (or "aliens" in American terms) "who are deemed inadmissable upon arrival". [1] Immigrants are entitled to claim they are entitled to refugee status, if they say they have a “credible fear of persecution or torture”, if returned home.

A single immigration officer will then make a determination as to whether the fear is credible. [1] If he or she determines it is credible, a panel will hold a hearing to explore the immigrant's refugee claim, in detail. However, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, [5] if the single frontline officer's initial assessment is that the fear is not credible, there is no route of appeal. Specifically, the part of the act codified as 8 U.S.C.   § 1252(e)(2) limits habeas corpus proceedings to the following determinations: [6]

  1. whether the petitioner is an alien,
  2. whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and
  3. whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, has been admitted as a refugee, or has been granted asylum.

Facts of the case

The respondent, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, is an "inadmissible alien who was apprehended almost immediately after illegally crossing the U.S. border and was placed into expedited removal proceedings". [3] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Thuraissigiam in the Supreme Court, Thuraissigiam is a Tamil former resident of Sri Lanka, who fled from Sri Lanka in order to "escape torture, beatings, and likely death". [4] An asylum officer interviewed Thuraissigiam and concluded that he lacked a "credible fear of persecution on a protected ground or a credible fear of torture". [3]

Lower court proceedings

After reviewing Thuraissigiam's case, an immigration judge agreed with the immigration officer's conclusions, and ordinarily, this would have been a final decision not subject to appeal. [3] [7] Nevertheless, Thuraissigiam filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, specifically §1252(e)(2). Thuraissigiam then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed, holding that §1252(e)(2) was unconstitutional because it violated the Suspension Clause. [3]

Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam Samuel Alito official photo.jpg
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

The Department of Homeland Security filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari on October 18, 2019, in order to review "whether, as applied to respondent, Section 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause". [3] Oral arguments were heard on March 2, 2020. [8]

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its decision on June 25, 2020. In a 7–2 opinion on judgment, the majority ruled that as under §1252(e)(2), the limits of review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus do not violate the Suspension Clause, reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanding the case back for further review. [1] The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Alito wrote that the habeas corpus claim made by Thuraissigiam failed as "it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope 'when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.'" as "Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country." [9] Alito further addressed the claims of due process would only be extended to those "who have established connections in this country" and not to a situation like Thuraissigiam who had just entered the country. [9]

Concurrence and dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion "to address the original meaning of the Suspension Clause." [10]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring only in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer agreed with the majority opinion that the Suspension Clause was not violated in this specific case but would have ruled no further than that. [9]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion "handcuffs the Judiciary's ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers" and that "It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ's protections 'have been strongest'". [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996</span> United States law

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104–132 (text)(PDF), 110 Stat. 1214, enacted April 24, 1996, was introduced to the United States Congress in April 1995 as a Senate Bill. The bill was passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress in response to the bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

<i>Ex parte Merryman</i> United States legal case

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), was a controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline enforcement of judicial decisions when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">D. Brooks Smith</span> American judge

D. Brooks Smith, born 1951, is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously Chief Judge of both the Third Circuit and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and is the only judge in the history of the Third Circuit to have served as both a chief district judge and chief of the Court of Appeals.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Title 8 of the United States Code codifies statutes relating to aliens and nationality in the United States Code.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Expedited removal is a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States where an alien is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the country, without going through the normal removal proceedings. The legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. Its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Streamline</span>

Operation Streamline is a joint initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice in the United States, started in 2005, that adopts a "zero-tolerance" approach to unauthorized border-crossing by criminally prosecuting those perpetrating it. Up to 70 people are tried at the same time, sometimes wearing shackles in the courtroom. Entering without inspection is a misdemeanor, and re-entering after deportation is a felony.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Nielsen v. Preap, No. 16-1363, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the detention of legal immigrants with criminal histories. In a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the government has the power to detain immigrants at any time that have committed certain crimes that could lead to their deportation, even if those crimes occurred long in the past.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Linda Greenhouse (2020-01-20). "An Old Battle Resumes at the Supreme Court". The New York Times . Retrieved 2020-01-02. The question in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is whether a 1996 federal immigration law unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases, including habeas corpus cases, brought by undocumented immigrants who are subject to what the law designated as 'expedited removal.'
  2. ↑ Thuraissigiam v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 917F.3d1097 (9th Cir.2019).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "19-161 Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Question Presented" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. October 18, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
  4. 1 2 "Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam". American Civil Liberties Union. January 17, 2020. Archived from the original on February 24, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
  5. ↑ Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L.   104–208 (text) (PDF) , 110  Stat.   3009-546, Div. C.
  6. ↑ 8 U.S.C.   § 1252 : Judicial review of orders of removal
  7. ↑ "Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Joint Appendix - Order of the Immigration Judge" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. p. 97. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
  8. ↑ "Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Oral Argument - Audio". U.S. Supreme Court. March 2, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Higgens, Tucker (June 25, 2020). "Supreme Court delivers win for Trump in case over speedy deportation". CNBC . Retrieved June 25, 2020.
  10. ↑ Hong, Kari (June 26, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Court confirms limitations on federal review for asylum seekers". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 28, 2020.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.