Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
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
ArgumentOral 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]

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.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes2020-01-20 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference AcluThuraissigiam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference qp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference aclu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).