Case No. 19-161 | 9th Cir.
Preview by Amy Orlov
The “Suspension Clause” of the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2. In 1996, the United States, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, passed a federal immigration law refusing any route of judicial appeal if the original frontline officer determines that there is no credible fear of persecution. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996). This effectively withholds the right of habeas corpus from these detainees.
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka as well as a Tamil, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. The area he is from was known for prejudice, torture, and assassination. In the 1990s, Thuraissigiam fled Sri Lanka, stating fear of persecution, and sought asylum in the United States. After Customs and Border Protection arrested him, an asylum officer determined that there was no credible fear of persecution and recommended that Thuraissigiam be removed. Both a supervisor and an immigration judge affirmed this determination.
Following these decisions, Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition in federal district court arguing that his expedited removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights. The district court denied his petition, holding that the 1996 federal immigration law denied subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the disallowance of judicial review over Thuraissigiam’s claims does not meet minimal constitutional requirements under the Suspension Clause. The issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the United States can withhold access to federal court remedies from detained undocumented immigrants who have been designated for expedited removal.
Respondent will likely argue that deportation involves a restriction on liberty and that habeas corpus provides a necessary check against government detention and deportation powers. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has always recognized the right to judicial review before the deportation and expulsion of a noncitizen. The government will likely argue that the framers of the Constitution did not envision that the Suspension Clause would apply to undocumented immigrants seeking relief from deportation.
Depending on how strongly the Court rules on this issue, this case could have implications for a previous Supreme Court case, Boumediene v. Bush, which allowed enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention through habeas corpus. 553 U.S. 723 (2008).