Department of Homeland Security, Petitioners v. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam

Summary

The Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1252(e)(2)'s limits on habeas review of expedited removal orders are constitutional as applied to Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national apprehended 25 yards inside the border after entering without inspection: the Suspension Clause protects at minimum only the writ as it existed in 1789, which secured release from unlawful detention and did not reach his request for a new opportunity to apply for asylum, and the Due Process Clause gives an alien who has not 'effected an entry' only those admission-related rights Congress provides by statute. The Court accordingly reversed the Ninth Circuit and directed dismissal of the habeas application. Justice Thomas concurred on an originalist theory that the Suspension Clause guards against discretionary executive detention and that IIRIRA is not a suspension; Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment on narrower as-applied grounds, treating respondent's claims as unreviewable factual and technical procedural challenges; Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, dissented, arguing the claims fall within the heartland of habeas and that due process extends to expedited-removal procedures.