Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the expedited removal process under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act violates the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause. The case involved Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, who was denied asylum after crossing the U.S. border. The Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed, upholding the limitations on judicial review of credible-fear determinations.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.
The Court held that § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the Suspension Clause or the Due Process Clause as applied in this case.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
The case addresses whether the expedited removal process violates the Due Process Clause for aliens seeking initial entry.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)As applied here, § 1252(e)(2) does not violate the Due Process Clause.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
The case involves limitations on judicial review of credible-fear determinations under the expedited removal process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)IIRIRA limits the review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam that support the summary and concepts above.
Respondent does not seek release from custody, but an additional opportunity to obtain asylum.
An alien in respondent's position, therefore, has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.
The rule would be meaningless if it became inoperative as soon as an arriving alien set foot on U.S. soil.
