Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
140 S. Ct. 1959
| SCOTUS | 2020Background
- Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, was apprehended ~25 yards inside the southern border and placed in expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
- Thuraissigiam claimed fear of persecution and underwent the credible-fear screening; the asylum officer, supervisor, and an immigration judge all found no credible fear and ordered removal.
- He filed a federal habeas petition challenging the credible-fear process and seeking vacatur and a fresh opportunity to apply for asylum (not expressly seeking immediate release).
- IIRIRA limits habeas review in expedited-removal cases via 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), permitting habeas only on narrow questions (e.g., whether petitioner is an alien; whether an expedited removal order was issued; whether petitioner already has lawful status).
- The Ninth Circuit held §1252(e)(2) unconstitutional as applied—finding a Suspension Clause violation and a due-process violation—prompting Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspension Clause scope: whether §1252(e)(2) as applied suspends habeas rights | Thuraissigiam: the Suspension Clause guarantees habeas as of 1789, which includes review of his credible-fear determination | Government: historical habeas core (1789) is release from unlawful detention; petitioner seeks relief beyond that core (review/authorization to remain) | Held: No Suspension Clause violation; historical habeas did not encompass the relief sought and §1252(e)(2) is constitutional as applied |
| Due Process: whether an alien apprehended just inside the border has Fifth Amendment due-process rights to judicial review of credible-fear procedures | Thuraissigiam: procedural due-process right to meaningful review of expedited removal | Government: aliens at initial entry (or "on the threshold") have no greater constitutional procedural rights than Congress provides | Held: No due-process violation; aliens detained at or near initial entry have only statutory procedural rights, satisfied here |
| Scope/remedy of habeas: whether habeas may be used to obtain administrative/judicial review leading to authorization to remain | Thuraissigiam: habeas is adaptable and may remedy erroneous application/interpretation of law, including release enabling staying in U.S. | Government: habeas historically aimed at securing release; using it to compel admission or extensive administrative review is outside the historic writ | Held: Habeas historically aimed at release; petitioner sought review beyond that core so Suspension Clause protection not implicated |
| Precedent/finality-era cases: whether late-19th/20th-century immigration habeas cases required a broader habeas floor | Thuraissigiam/Ninth Cir.: finality-era cases show constitutional minimum of judicial review on legal/mixed questions | Government: those cases rested on broader statutory habeas jurisdiction (e.g., 1867 Act) and do not establish a Suspension Clause floor | Held: Finality-era decisions arose from statutory authority and interpretive choices (avoiding constitutional questions); they do not show the writ guaranteed the relief petitioner seeks in 1789 |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Suspension Clause analysis; habeas protects meaningful opportunity to challenge executive detention)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (presumption against reading statutes to repeal habeas; historic scope of habeas in immigration-related detention)
- Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892) (interpreting 1891 Act; courts may review legality of detention but finality provisions construed to bar factual-review only)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (habeas is remedy for unlawful detention; distinguished claims seeking transfer/transport between sovereigns)
- Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953) (interpreting finality statutes and noting judicial review remains "except insofar as required by the Constitution")
- Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3 (1915) (construing finality provisions as barring review of factual findings but allowing legal review in habeas)
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) (recognizing limited procedural protections for arriving aliens; executive determinations are due process when authorized by Congress)
- Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982) (political branches have plenary power over admission; noncitizen's rights depend on admission status)