Court review of fast-track deportations
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
In brief
The Supreme Court rejected Thuraissigiam's constitutional challenge in his case, overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling (reversed), and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · June 25, 2020 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).
- Who it affects
- The ruling kept Section 1252(e)(2)'s limits in place for Thuraissigiam's case and said they violated neither the Constitution's Suspension Clause nor its Due Process Clause.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It ruled that the limits on habeas corpus (a prisoner’s challenge to being locked up) review in expedited-removal cases did not violate the Constitution as applied to Thuraissigiam.
The case tested whether Congress may restrict court review of detention in expedited-removal cases without violating the Constitution's Suspension Clause.
Question presented
Whether, as applied to respondent, Section 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.
What the Court decided
Holding
1. As applied here, §1252(e)(2) does not violate the Suspension Clause. 2. As applied here, §1252(e)(2) does not violate the Due Process Clause. More than a century of precedent establishes that, for aliens seeking initial entry, “the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” Nishimura Ekiu, 142 U. S., at 660. Respondent argues that this rule does not apply to him because he succeeded in making it 25 yards into U. S. territory. But the rule would be meaningless if it became inoperative as soon as an arriving alien set foot on U. S. soil. An alien who is detained shortly after unlawful entry cannot be said to have “effected an entry.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, 693. 917 F. 3d 1097, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 2agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Breyerwrote separately
- Ginsburg
From the opinions
“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.”
What's next
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings under its ruling (remanded).
Why it matters
The decision addressed his circumstances, not every possible challenge to expedited removal.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
Case data updated: status, opinion_date
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in DHS v. Thuraissigiam?
- It decided that Section 1252(e)(2) did not violate the Suspension Clause or the Due Process Clause in Thuraissigiam's case.
- What was the Suspension Clause issue in this case?
- The issue was whether Section 1252(e)(2) unlawfully limited court review of his detention. The Court said no under the Suspension Clause.
- Did the Court decide every possible expedited-removal challenge?
- No. Its decision concerned Section 1252(e)(2) in Thuraissigiam's circumstances, not every possible expedited-removal challenge.
- How did the Court handle the Ninth Circuit's decision?
- It overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
- What happens next in DHS v. Thuraissigiam?
- The case returns to the lower court for further proceedings under the Supreme Court's ruling; it was remanded (sent back).
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.