Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: March 2, 2020
Decided: June 25, 2020
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The court reversed the 9th Circuit's decision in a 7-2 ruling, holding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Suspension or Due Process clauses.[1] Click here for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2017, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan native, entered the United States without lawful permission by crossing the border with Mexico. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer apprehended Thuraissigiam and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began expedited removal proceedings. An asylum officer and later an immigration judge decided Thuraissigiam did not have a credible fear of persecution in Sri Lanka. Thuraissigiam filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.[2] DHS filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court.[3]
  • The issue: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.[3]
  • The outcome: The court reversed the 9th Circuit's decision in a 7-2 ruling, holding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Suspension or Due Process clauses.[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan native, entered the United States without lawful permission on February 17, 2017, by crossing the border from Mexico. Later that night, Thuraissigiam was arrested by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began expedited removal proceedings against Thuraissigiam. Thuraissigiam indicated he had a fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.[2]

    After an interview, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer determined Thuraissigiam did not have a credible fear of persecution. Thuraissigiam then requested review by an immigration judge, who affirmed the asylum officer's determination and returned the case to DHS.[2]

    In 2018, Thuraissigiam filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, arguing the order "violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights." He asked the court to vacate the expedited removal order and grant another opportunity to apply for asylum or relief from removal. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling the court was not authorized to review claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e).[2]

    Thuraissigiam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.[2] The 9th Circuit held Section 1252(e)(2) violated Thuraissigiam's rights under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Cause is a clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars a writ of habeas corpus from being suspended once the writ has been issued.[3]

    DHS filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing "the Ninth Circuit has held unconstitutional an important Act of Congress that has long governed judicial review of final orders of removal in expedited removal proceedings. That decision is wrong, creates a circuit conflict, and has significant practical importance."[3]

    8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)

    8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) establishes exceptions to the bar of judicial review for expedited removal orders. According to the petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, § 1252(e) provides that judicial review of expedited removal orders is available in habeas corpus proceedings with certain limitations.[3]

    8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) reads:[4]

    “ Judicial review of any determination made under section 1225(b)(1) of this title is available in habeas corpus proceedings, but shall be limited to determinations of—

    (A) whether the petitioner is an alien,

    (B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, and

    (C) 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 under section 1157 of this title, or has been granted asylum under section 1158 of this title, such status not having been terminated, and is entitled to such further inquiry as prescribed by the Attorney General pursuant to section 1225(b)(1)(C) of this title.[5]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.[3]

    Outcome

    In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the 9th Circuit, holding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Suspension or Due Process clauses.[1]

    Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

    Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:

    “ This case concerns the constitutionality of the system Congress devised. Among other things, IIRIRA placed restrictions on the ability of asylum seekers to obtain review under the federal habeas statute, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that these restrictions are unconstitutional. According to the Ninth Circuit, they unconstitutionally suspend the writ of habeas corpus and violate asylum seekers’ right to due process. We now review that decision and reverse.


    Respondent’s Suspension Clause argument fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope “when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.” Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 746 (2008). Indeed, respondent’s use of the writ would have been unrecognizable at that time. 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.

    Respondent’s due process argument fares no better. While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the Court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause. See Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 660 (1892). Respondent attempted to enter the country illegally and was apprehended just 25 yards from the border. He therefore has no entitlement to procedural rights other than those afforded by statute.

    In short, under our precedents, neither the Suspension Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires any further review of respondent’s claims, and IIRIRA’s limitations on habeas review are constitutional as applied. ...

    Because the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that §1252(e)(2) violates the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause, we reverse the judgment and remand the case with directions that the application for habeas corpus be dismissed.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Alito[1]

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote:

    “ I join the Court’s opinion, which correctly concludes that respondent’s Suspension Clause argument fails because he does not seek a writ of habeas corpus. I write separately to address the original meaning of the Suspension Clause, which guarantees that “[t]he 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.” Art. I, §9, cl. 2. The Founders appear to have understood “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus” to guarantee freedom from discretionary detention, and a “suspen[sion]” of that privilege likely meant a statute granting the executive the power to detain without bail or trial based on mere suspicion of a crime or dangerousness. Thus, the expedited removal procedure in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–546, is likely not a suspension. ...


    This statute [§1252(e)(2)] bears little resemblance to a suspension as that term was understood at the founding. It does not allow the executive to detain based on mere suspicion of a crime or dangerousness. Rather, it requires a finding that the detainee lacks valid documentation and is not eligible for asylum. It even expressly permits habeas relief for a detainee who does not meet certain criteria for expedited removal.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Thomas[1]

    Justice Breyer

    Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

    In his concurring opinion, Breyer wrote:

    “ The statute at issue here, 8 U. S. C. §1252(e)(2), sets forth strict limits on what claims a noncitizen subject to expedited removal may present in federal habeas corpus proceedings. I agree that enforcing those limits in this particular case does not violate the Suspension Clause’s constitutional command ... But we need not, and should not, go further. ...


    Addressing more broadly whether the Suspension Clause protects people challenging removal decisions may raise a host of difficult questions in the immigration context. What review might the Suspension Clause assure, say, a person apprehended years after she crossed our borders clandestinely and started a life in this country? ... Could Congress, for that matter, deny habeas review to someone ordered removed despite claiming to be a natural-born U. S. citizen? ...

    The answers to these and other “difficult questions about the scope of [Suspension Clause] protections” lurk behind the scenes here. Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 10). I would therefore avoid making statements about the Suspension Clause that sweep beyond the principles needed to decide this case—let alone come to conclusions about the Due Process Clause, a distinct constitutional provision that is not directly at issue here. ...

    As for the resolution of the dispute before us, Congress, in my view, had the constitutional power to foreclose habeas review of the claims that respondent has pressed in this case. ... Two features of this case persuade me.

    First, respondent’s status suggests that the constitutional floor set by the Suspension Clause here cannot be high. ... Second, our precedents demonstrate that respondent’s claims are of the kind that Congress may, consistent with the Suspension Clause, make unreviewable in habeas proceedings. ... For these reasons, I would hold that, as applied to respondent, §1252(e)(2)’s limits on habeas review do not violate the Suspension Clause. I would go no further.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Breyer[1]

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Kagan.

    In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote:

    “ The majority declares that the Executive Branch’s denial of asylum claims in expedited removal proceedings shall be functionally unreviewable through the writ of habeas corpus, no matter whether the denial is arbitrary or irrational or contrary to governing law. That determination flouts over a century of this Court’s practice. ... By self-imposing this limitation on habeas relief in the absence of a congressional suspension, the Court abdicates its constitutional duty and rejects precedent extending to the foundations of our common law.


    Making matters worse, the Court holds that the Constitution’s due process protections do not extend to noncitizens like respondent, who challenge the procedures used to determine whether they may seek shelter in this country or whether they may be cast to an unknown fate. The decision deprives them of any means to ensure the integrity of an expedited removal order, an order which, the Court has just held, is not subject to any meaningful judicial oversight as to its substance. In doing so, the Court upends settled constitutional law and paves the way toward transforming already summary expedited removal proceedings into arbitrary administrative adjudications.

    Today’s decision handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers. It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ’s protections “have been strongest.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 301 (2001). And it increases the risk of erroneous immigration decisions that contravene governing statutes and treaties.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Sotomayor[1]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, decided June 25, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Thuraissigiam v. Department of Homeland Security, decided March 7, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a writ of certiorari: Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam," accessed October 22, 2019
    4. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "U.S. Code § 1252. Judicial review of orders of removal," accessed October 22, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed March 9, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Department_of_Homeland_Security_v._Thuraissigiam&oldid=9175049"