[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam\/","headline":"Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam","name":"Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam","description":"2020 United States Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam Full case name Department of Homeland Security, et","datePublished":"2020-05-28","dateModified":"2020-05-28","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/f\/f3\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg\/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png","url":"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/f\/f3\/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg\/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png","height":"100","width":"100"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam\/","about":["Wiki"],"wordCount":5992,"articleBody":"2020 United States Supreme Court caseDepartment of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamFull case nameDepartment of Homeland Security, et al., petitioners v. Vijayakumar ThuraissigiamDocket no.19-161Citations591 U.S. ___ (more)140 S. Ct. 1959ArgumentOral argumentPriorMotion to dismiss granted, Thuraissigiam v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 287 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2018); reversed, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019); cert. granted, 140 S. Ct. 427 (2019).The limits set by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 on review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01252(e)(2) does not violate the Suspension Clause.Chief JusticeJohn RobertsAssociate JusticesClarence Thomas\u00a0\u00b7  Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer\u00a0\u00b7  Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor\u00a0\u00b7  Elena KaganNeil Gorsuch\u00a0\u00b7  Brett KavanaughMajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, KavanaughConcurrenceThomasConcurrenceBreyer (in judgment), joined by GinsburgDissentSotomayor, joined by KaganU.S. Const. art. IIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7\u20132 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.[1][2]The Department of Homeland Security placed Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam into “expedited removal” proceedings after Thuraissigiam was apprehended 25 yards (23\u00a0m) from the southern U.S. border after crossing it illegally.[3] Thuraissigiam, a Tamil former resident of Sri Lanka, pled for asylum asserting that he fled his country to “escape torture, beatings, and likely death”.[4] An immigration officer did not find his fear of persecution credible, and an immigration judge agreed with the officer’s findings.Thuraissigiam, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which a U.S. district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that limits the judicial review of decisions made by immigration officers. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the section of the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Suspension Clause.On June 25, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court found that Thuraissigiam’s claim for habeas corpus, to seek additional administrative review of his asylum claim, was beyond the scope established for habeas corpus in the Constitution, to secure release from unlawful detention. The majority opinion further rejected the argument that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment also compels judicial review of Thuraissigiam’s claim.Background[edit]Federal immigration statute[edit]The Suspension Clause of Article One of the United States Constitution states that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except when a suspension may be required in cases of invasion or rebellion. In 1996, Congress passed the  Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which designated certain undocumented immigrants as subject to “expedited removal”.[1] According to Linda Greenhouse, writing in The New York Times, expedited removal is intended for immigrants (or “aliens” in American terms) “who are deemed inadmissable upon arrival”.[1] Immigrants are entitled to claim they are entitled to refugee status, if they say they have a \u201ccredible fear of persecution or torture\u201d, if returned home.A single immigration officer will then make a determination as to whether the fear is credible.[1]  If he or she determines it is credible, a panel will hold a hearing to explore the immigrant’s refugee claim, in detail.  However, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act,[5] if the single frontline officer’s initial assessment is that the fear is not credible, there is no route of appeal. Specifically, the part of the act codified as 8 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01252(e)(2) limits habeas corpus proceedings to the following determinations:[6]whether the petitioner is an alien,whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, andwhether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, has been admitted as a refugee, or has been granted asylum.Facts of the case[edit]The respondent, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, is an “inadmissible alien who was apprehended almost immediately after illegally crossing the U.S. border and was placed into expedited removal proceedings”.[3] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Thuraissigiam in the Supreme Court, Thuraissigiam is a Tamil former resident of Sri Lanka, who fled from Sri Lanka in order to “escape torture, beatings, and likely death”.[4] An asylum officer interviewed Thuraissigiam and concluded that he lacked a “credible fear of persecution on a protected ground or a credible fear of torture”.[3]Lower court proceedings[edit]After reviewing Thuraissigiam’s case, an immigration judge agreed with the immigration officer’s conclusions, and ordinarily, this would have been a final decision not subject to appeal.[3][7] Nevertheless, Thuraissigiam filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, specifically \u00a71252(e)(2). Thuraissigiam then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed, holding that \u00a71252(e)(2) was unconstitutional because it violated the Suspension Clause.[3]Supreme Court[edit]  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamThe Department of Homeland Security filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari on October 18, 2019, in order to review “whether, as applied to respondent, Section 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause”.[3] Oral arguments were heard on March 2, 2020.[8]Opinion of the Court[edit]The Court issued its decision on June 25, 2020. In a 7\u20132 opinion on judgment, the majority ruled that as under \u00a71252(e)(2), the limits of review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus do not violate the Suspension Clause, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanding the case back for further review.[1] The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Alito wrote that the habeas corpus claim made by Thuraissigiam failed as “it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope ‘when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.'” as “Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.”[9] Alito further addressed the claims of due process would only be extended to those “who have established connections in this country” and not to a situation like Thuraissigiam who had just entered the country.[9]Concurrence and dissent[edit]Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion “to address the original meaning of the Suspension Clause.”[10]Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring only in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Breyer agreed with the majority opinion that the Suspension Clause was not violated in this specific case but would have ruled no further than that.[9]Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion “handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers” and that “It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ’s protections ‘have been strongest'”.[9]References[edit]^ a b c d e Linda Greenhouse (2020-01-20). “An Old Battle Resumes at the Supreme Court”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2020-01-02. The question in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam is whether a 1996 federal immigration law unconstitutionally stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases, including habeas corpus cases, brought by undocumented immigrants who are subject to what the law designated as ‘expedited removal.‘^ Thuraissigiam v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019).^ a b c d e f “19-161 Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Question Presented” (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. October 18, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 13, 2019. Retrieved April 24, 2020.^ a b “Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam”. American Civil Liberties Union. January 17, 2020. Archived from the original on February 24, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020.^ Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L.\u00a0104\u2013208 (text) (PDF), 110\u00a0Stat.\u00a03009-546, Div. C.^ 8 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01252: Judicial review of orders of removal ^ “Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Joint Appendix – Order of the Immigration Judge” (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. p.\u00a097. Retrieved April 24, 2020.^ “Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam: Oral Argument – Audio”. U.S. Supreme Court. March 2, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020.^ a b c d Higgens, Tucker (June 25, 2020). “Supreme Court delivers win for Trump in case over speedy deportation”. CNBC. Retrieved June 25, 2020.^ Hong, Kari (June 26, 2020). “Opinion analysis: Court confirms limitations on federal review for asylum seekers”. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 28, 2020.Further reading[edit]External links[edit]U.S. Supreme Court Article I case lawDormant Commerce ClauseBrown v. Maryland (1827)Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)Edwards v. California (1941)Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)Maine v. Taylor (1986)Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)Granholm v. Heald (2005)United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)OthersCopyright Act of 1790Patent Act of 1793Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831Copyright Act of 1870Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890International Copyright Act of 1891Copyright Act of 1909Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914Lanham ActInwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)Matal v. Tam (2017)Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)Copyright Act of 1976Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)Stewart v. Abend (1990)Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc. (1996)Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L’anza Research International Inc. (1998)Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)Golan v. Holder (2012)Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)Allen v. Cooper (2020)Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)Other copyright casesOther patent casesContinental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)Altvater v. Freeman (1943)Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)United States v. Adams (1966)Brenner v. Manson (1966)Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)Dann v. Johnston (1976)Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)Parker v. Flook (1978)Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)Diamond v. Diehr (1981)Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)Bilski v. Kappos (2010)Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)Gunn v. Minton (2013)Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)Other trademark cases"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki19\/department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam"}}]}]