Friday, February 14, 2020
Aditi Shah on Lawfare looks at Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, a case that will be argued in March before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning how much judicial review is constitutionally required for immigrants facing expedited removal. Shah's intro:
"When, if ever, must the federal court door be open to an asylum-seeker facing expedited removal who claims that the government violated his statutory, regulatory and constitutional rights? In less than a month, this question will be argued before the Supreme Court. At stake are the fates of noncitizens being forced to return to the persecution they fled, the government’s ability to administer an important part of the immigration system, and the judiciary’s role in holding the executive accountable.
. . . The court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act governing habeas proceedings, is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause as applied to the respondent, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam. The case implicates contentious debates about the constitutional rights of asylum-seekers and carries practical consequences for government regulation of expedited deportation."
Shah is a J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, where she is a clinical student at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and a research assistant for Professor William Rubenstein.