The case, as reported on SCOTUS Blog, raised the following issues:
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to judicial review of their statutory, regulatory and constitutional claims, even by habeas corpus, and are “prohibited from invoking the protections of the suspension clause” to challenge their removal; and (2) whether the 3rd Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to every other circuit to address the issue, that persons who have entered the United States may be “assimilated” to the constitutional status of noncitizens arriving at our borders, and thereby denied constitutional rights.
In refusing to hear the case, the Court left the 3rd Circuit opinion denying the petitioners access to a federal court hearing in place.
Human Rights Watch explained that "Asylum seekers processed under expedited removal must pass a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer before they are allowed to file for asylum before an immigration judge. Asylum seekers who go through these interviews are often traumatized and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries, their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S. authorities. They may be interviewed by telephone by an officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that hinder communication, including anxiety about minor children detained with them."
This is yet another example of immigration officers who do not understand what they are observing. Little training is given to recognizing the symptoms of trauma. A telephone interview provides even less opportunity for decision makers to recognize trauma and understand the very real fear mothers have of returning their children to a country where there is high risk of their being killed.
Eleanor Acer of Human Rights Watch noted: "This ruling will have grave consequences not only for these families, but also for many other asylum seekers whose lives are at risk due to the lack of effective safeguards in expedited removal processing. The expedited removal process is riddled with deficiencies that leave vulnerable refugees at risk of deportation back to persecution."