It's Now Up to the Supreme Court to Decide If This Trump Order...
Here’s Who Stopped a Crazed Muslim's Stabbing Rampage in Paris
Wait, *THAT'S* Seattle PD's Description of the Person of Interest in Food Festival...
House Dem Pitches Dating Ban Since Her Party Has Been Wrecked by Multiple...
Atlanta Resident Facing Federal Charges for Using 'Duress Password' to Wipe Phone During...
You Won't Believe How Mamdani Responded to Families of 9/11 Victims About Memorial
The WHCA Dinner Gave the Press Morning Sickness
The Dummheit of Berlin Pride
John Fetterman Blasts the DSA 'Big Tent' Nonsense From His Party
Buyer's Remorse? 'Remove Mamdani' Protests Are Popping Up in the Big Apple
Turns Out 'Trans Inclusive' NHS Wards Led to Women Being Assaulted
A Milwaukee Woman Is in Hot Water for Scamming Renters
Democrat NY Rep Stays Silent on His Party's Socialist Rise
Bryan Kohberger Seeking New Trial, Rescinds Guilty Plea in Idaho Murder Case
There's 'Not Much Time' for Iran to Make a Deal With Trump
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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement