Supremes rule illegals can't sue for rejected asylum claim

The United States Border Patrol in the Algodones Dunes, California (Photo: Department of Homeland Security)

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in a major immigration case, ruling 7-2 that a federal law curbing the ability of asylum seekers to appeal a rejection of their application is constitutional.

The administration now can deport some asylum seekers without allowing them to appeal to a federal judge. Asylum seekers must convince an asylum officer during an initial screening that they have a credible fear of persecution if they return to their home country.

The Washington Examiner explained the decision means "asylum seekers are not entitled to habeas corpus, which would give them recourse to protest an expedited deportation."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of Sri Lankan citizen Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, said the ruling could affect several thousand immigrants.

TRENDING: Look at this list of brand-spanking-new lies by Joe Biden

Thuraissigiam was arrested after entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico near San Diego. He claimed to a Customs and Border Protection officer he feared being sent back to Sri Lanka, because he had been kidnapped and tortured by government officials there.

But the interviewer found no reason to believe Thuraissigiam would be targeted, and two supervisors agreed. Thuraissigiam then sued in federal court. The case was dismissed then reversed in the 9th Circuit.

That court's determination now has been overruled.

Asylum seekers are required to demonstrate that their lives are at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political affiliation.

The Examiner noted that amid "a surge of illegal immigration of Mexican citizens at the southern border in the mid-1990s, Congress created a new method for CBP to respond to the influx of immigrants it was arresting, allowing the agency to deport select immigrants within days instead of weeks or longer in detention."

"The process of 'expedited removal' allowed federal law enforcement at the country’s borders to return anyone to their country who had been arrested within 100 miles of the border within the past two weeks for illegally entering the U.S. Immigrants eligible for expedited removal would no longer be given the right to counsel, a full immigration hearing, or the ability to appeal a decision."

Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that granting illegal aliens a right to sue would undermine the government's ability "to control the border."

The Supreme Court opinion noted the plaintiff based his arguments on "cases decided before or around the Constitution's adoption," or the law "as it existed in 1789."

"More than a century of precedent establishes that, for aliens seeking initial entry, 'the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law,'" the court said.

"An alien in respondent's position, therefore, has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute."

The complaint's request that the constitutional writ of habeas corpus be vastly expanded was rejected because the intent is to obtain release from unlawful detention, not "stay in this country."

Due process claims also were rejected.

"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," the court said.