Thousands of advocates, activists, and community members flooded the streets at Foley Square in New York City on July 12, 2019. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Betraying 'Bedrock Principle' of Due Process, Supreme Court Allows Fast-Tracked Deportations
"This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNN reported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC News reported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNN reported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC News reported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.
The ACLU warned Thursday that people's lives could be "in grave danger" following the Supreme Court's ruling allowing for fast-tracked deportations of certain asylum seekers.
The ruling was 7-2, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.
CNN reported:
Currently, undocumented immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of arrival are subject to an expedited removal process and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer, and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.
The high court's ruling means that if the asylum seeker fails that initial screening, they can face "expedited removal."
"While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien's lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
Sotomayor warned in her dissent, "Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any non-citizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents."
As NBC News reported,
The ruling was a defeat for Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam of Sri Lanka, who was detained by federal agents 25 yards north of the U.S.-Mexico border. He said that as a member of his home country's Tamil minority, he faced harm if returned and had once been kidnapped and beaten, though he said he wasn't sure why he was assaulted. When his asylum claim was rejected, he sought help in federal court by filing a habeas corpus petition, invoking the Constitution's guarantee against unlawful detention. But the Supreme Court said the option wasn't open to him.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as USA Today reported, "agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."
The decision drew sharp rebuke from ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said Gelernt. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
The ruling is a win for the President Donald Trump, who's made anti-immigrant policies a centerpiece of his administration.