The Supreme Court has brought the Trump administration a huge success in immigration today, with a 7-2 ruling that asylum seekers can be deported without submitting their cases to a federal judge. This is an integral part of the government's efforts to speed up deportation and prevent the use of asylum applications as a way to extend your stay in the United States. The case is Department of Homeland Security against Thuraissigiam.
The case is a severe reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit, which has decided that Section 1252 (e) (2), as applied here, violates the suspension clause and the due process clause. This was the unanimous decision of Judges A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown and Richard A. Paez.
Judge Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which allows accelerated deportation once individuals fail their first asylum exam under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The law prohibits judicial review of the credible fear determination, and the Court ruled that it did not violate the constitution's suspension clause.
The case concerns a Sri Lankan citizen who crossed the southern U.S. border in January 2017 without documentation. He was arrested within 25 meters of the border and asked for asylum because he was once kidnapped and beaten by a group of men. However, he did not know her identity or why they attacked him. He was not afraid of persecution because of political fears.
The case is important because many Democrats have argued that asylum could be based on escaping high crime or poor economic conditions. However, the Court notes that most asylum seekers are not subject to accelerated deportation: “In the past five years, almost 77% of the checks have led to credible fear. And almost half of the balance (11% of the total number of reviews) was closed for administrative reasons, including the withdrawal of the claim by the foreigner. "
However, the opinion has a language that could lay the foundation for future government decisions in this area. The Court clearly ruled against arguments for reasonable procedural rights that go beyond the review process:
While foreigners who have made connections in that country have reasonable procedural rights in deportation procedures, the Court long ago ruled that Congress has the right to determine the conditions for a foreigner's lawful entry into that country, and that a foreigner as a result The first entry is on the threshold and cannot claim any major rights from the due process clause. See Nishimura Ekiu v. USA, 142, USA 651, 660 (1892). The interviewee tried to enter the country illegally and was arrested only 25 meters from the border. He is therefore not entitled to procedural rights other than those required by law. In short, according to our precedents, neither the suspension clause nor the due process clause of the fifth amendment require further review of the respondent's claims, and IIRIRA's restrictions on the Habeas review are constitutionally applicable.
Only Justice Sotomayor and Kagan disagreed.
Here is the opinion: Department of Homeland Security vs. Thuraissigiam