An MS Now Host Did Not Just Say *That* About the Rape Allegation...
Graham Platner Is Refusing to Drop Out Unless He Can Do This...
Scott Jennings Just Gave an Update on Mitch McConnell's Condition
Border Agents Just Made a Massive Drug Bust in Texas
DHS Released More Information on the Haitian Illegal Alien Who Killed a PA...
Another Islamic Influencer Is Targeting Our Dogs
Another Business Flees the Failing State of Illinois, Thanks to Democrats in Springfield
Democrats Defended the Indefensible. Never Let Them Forget It.
The DSA Wants to Know What Has Capitalism Given Us. Here's the Answer.
The Trump Administration Just Responded to Iran's Attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump Hasn't Changed His Mind About Greenland
Ro Khanna Made His Case for a National Wealth Tax. It Doesn't Hold...
Undercover: Dan Osborn Staffer Claims Nebraska Senate Candidate Recruited Graham Platner f...
This Illegal Alien Who Used THC-Laced Candy to Smuggle Children Was Just Sentenced
Two Supreme Court Justices Are Headed to Congress
Tipsheet

Supreme Court Sides with Trump Administration on Expediting Deportations

Supreme Court Sides with Trump Administration on Expediting Deportations
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, FILE

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that asylum seekers do not have the right to a federal court hearing before being deported in *name.* The 7-2 decision is a decisive win for the Trump administration’s immigration policy, and allows for the fast-tracked removal of noncitizens. The majority opinion is backed by the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IRIRA) composed a system to deem asylum cases as meritless or fraudulent with limited judicial review.

Advertisement

The court ruled that the IRIRA, does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which protects habeas corpus and gives the court jurisdiction to deem a person worthy of release from illegal detention. 

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Alito, held that the respondent did not seek release, but rather a reprieve from his removal order. The high court overturned an original ruling from the Ninth Circuit:

“[The] respondent did not ask to be released.13 Instead, he sought entirely different relief: vacatur of his “removal order” and “an order directing [the Department] to provide him with a new. . .opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief from removal,” the justices wrote. “the historic role of habeas is to secure release from custody, the Ninth Circuit did not suggest that release, at least in the traditional sense of the term,14 was required. Instead, what it found to be necessary was a “meaningful opportunity” for review of the procedures used in determining that [the] respondent did not have a credible fear of persecution.”

Advertisement

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos