Supreme Court Upholds Limited Review of Expedited Removal

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Review of Expedited Removal

Legal Sidebari

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Review of
Expedited Removal
July 6, 2020
Certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who lack authorization to enter the United States are subject to a
streamlined “expedited removal” process, which affords fewer procedural protections to the alien than
standard removal proceedings and typically results in the quicker expulsion of the alien from the United
States. Federal statute also precludes judicial review of an expedited removal order except in limited
circumstances, including habeas corpus proceedings concerning whether the alien is lawfully detained.
But habeas review is limited to three narrow grounds, and does not include review of threshold
determinations about asylum eligibility or any other aspect of the merits of the underlying expedited
removal proceedings. In DHS v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court considered whether these statutory
limitations violate the Suspension Clause, which normally forbids the government from restricting an
individual’s ability to contest his or her detention in a habeas action. The Court held that the statute’s
restrictions on the ability of an alien in expedited removal to challenge matters other than the lawfulness
of his detention did not violate the Suspension Clause. The Court also held that the statute’s limitations on
judicial review did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because aliens seeking initial
entry to the United States—which comprise most aliens in expedited removal—have limited due process
protections.
Constitutional Rights of Aliens: Due Process and the Suspension Clause
The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress has plenary power over immigration that applies
with most force to the admission and exclusion of aliens seeking to enter the United States. Thus, the
Court has held that aliens seeking initial entry, including those detained within the United States pending
determinations as to their admissibility, have no constitutional rights regarding their applications for
admission, and are entitled only to whatever procedures Congress provided by statute. Conversely, aliens
who have physically entered the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, are “persons”
entitled to protections under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which generally requires the
government to provide a hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a liberty
interest. In various opinions, though, the Court has suggested that the scope of due process may turn upon
whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10510
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
While the scope of due process protections may turn on whether an alien has entered the United States or
developed ties to the country, aliens placed in immigration custody may seek review of the legality of
their detention in federal court in habeas corpus proceedings. The Suspension Clause provides that “[t]he
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it.” In INS v. St. Cyr, the Supreme Court construed a federal statute
limiting judicial review of final orders of removal as preserving habeas review for aliens detained in the
United States, concluding that to interpret the statute otherwise “would raise serious constitutional
questions” under the Suspension Clause. The privilege of habeas may also extend to noncitizens held
outside the United States in some instances. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Court held that the privilege
extended to enemy belligerents held at a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because the United
States had “complete and total control” over the territory in which they were detained.
Expedited Removal Framework
Under the expedited removal framework set forth in Section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA), certain aliens who have arrived at a U.S. port of entry, or who are apprehended after recently
entering the country without inspection, will be removed from the United States without a hearing or
further review if they lack valid entry documents or tried to procure admission by fraud or
misrepresentation. Further administrative review is to occur if the alien indicates an intent to seek asylum
or otherwise claims a fear of persecution if removed. Aliens showing a credible fear of persecution or
torture must be placed in standard removal proceedings where asylum and related protections may be
pursued. Generally, an alien initially placed in expedited removal must be detained during subsequent
proceedings.
The INA generally bars judicial review of an expedited removal order, including an asylum officer’s
credible fear determination. But under INA § 242(e)(2), an alien may challenge an expedited removal
order in habeas corpus proceedings concerning the legality of the alien’s detention. The habeas court’s
jurisdiction is limited to reviewing whether (1) the petitioner in the habeas action is an alien; (2) the
petitioner was “ordered removed” under INA § 235(b)(1)’s expedited removal provisions; and (3) the
petitioner can prove that he or she is a lawful permanent resident (LPR), refugee, or asylee. A separate
provision, INA § 242(e)(5), limits the scope of inquiry with regard to whether an alien was “ordered
removed” under § 235(b)(1) “to whether such an order in fact was issued and whether it relates to the
petitioner.” Consequently, “[t]here shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or
entitled to any relief from removal.” Thus, although habeas review is available to detained aliens placed
in expedited removal, the governing statute limits the court’s review to three issues, and precludes any
review of the merits of the underlying proceedings that led to the expedited removal order.
Procedural Background in Thuraissigiam
Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, was placed into expedited removal shortly after entering the United
States without inspection. Following an asylum officer’s negative credible fear finding, he was ordered
removed. Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition arguing that the asylum officer failed to follow proper
standards and procedures during the credible fear screening. He requested another opportunity to pursue
asylum. A federal district court dismissed the petition, ruling that Thuraissigiam’s claims did not fall
within any of INA § 242(e)(2)’s specified grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
agreed that § 242(e)(2) barred judicial review. But observing that habeas relief has always been available
to aliens, including those stopped at the border, the court determined that Thuraissigiam could invoke the
Suspension Clause to challenge the statute’s limits on the scope of habeas review. The court held that §
242(e)(2) violated the Suspension Clause by denying Thuraissigiam the opportunity to contest the validity
of his expedited removal proceedings, including his credible fear screening. The court also determined

Congressional Research Service
3
that due process protections attached to Thuraissigiam because he was apprehended within the United
States.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that INA § 242(e)(2)’s constraints on judicial review of expedited
removal in habeas proceedings do not violate the Suspension Clause. Writing for the majority of the
Court, Justice Alito (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas)
determined that Thuraissigiam could not invoke the Suspension Clause to challenge § 242(e)(2) because
the relief he requested fell outside the scope of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that, at the time of the
Constitution, habeas corpus was understood as “a means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and
securing release.” And the Court observed that opinions in habeas cases issued around that time “are
about release from restraint.” But here, Thuraissigiam did not seek release from custody or dispute that
his detention during expedited removal was lawful. Instead, he requested further review of his asylum
claim—and whether he should remain in the United States—which “falls outside the scope of the
common-law habeas writ” that the Suspension Clause sought to protect.
Additionally, in support of his Suspension Clause argument, Thuraissigiam cited later, “finality era” cases
from the 19th and 20th centuries, in which the Supreme Court reviewed habeas claims challenging whether
federal officers complied with immigration laws. But the Thuraissigiam Court observed that it had
“exercised habeas jurisdiction in the finality era cases because the [then-existing] habeas statute conferred
that authority, not because it was required by the Suspension Clause.”
The Court also briefly considered the applicability of its decisions in Boumediene and St. Cyr. to
Thuraissigiam’s habeas claims. Boumediene, the Court contended, was inapposite here. While the Court
there said that habeas provided a means by which suspected enemy belligerents held at Guantanamo Bay
could challenge the legality of their detention, the detainees there sought release from custody, and that
decision never indicated that habeas corpus could be used to gain entry into the United States. The Court
also characterized St. Cyr as simply reaffirming that aliens could secure their release from custody
through habeas, not that habeas could be used for other purposes unrelated to custody.
The Court also rejected as “contrary to more than a century of precedent” the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion
that INA § 242(e)(2)’s restrictions on judicial review implicated Thuraissigiam’s right to due process. The
Court observed that aliens seeking initial entry to the United States have limited due process protections,
and may only avail themselves of the procedures Congress provided by statute. The Court determined
that, although Thuraissigiam was 25 yards within the United States when apprehended, he could still be
“treated for due process purposes as if stopped at the border.” To conclude otherwise, the Court warned,
would “undermine the sovereign prerogative of governing admission to this country and create a perverse
incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location.”
While joining the majority opinion, Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurrence where he interpreted the
Suspension Clause as limiting “the power to detain without bail or trial based on mere suspicion of a
crime or dangerousness,” and concluded that it therefore likely did not apply in the expedited removal
context. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, issued an opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment,
as to the particular facts of Thuraissigiam’s case. But he suggested that the Suspension Clause might
protect an alien’s ability, through habeas, to challenge removal decisions in other circumstances, such as
if an alien subject to removal has lived in the United States for many years.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Kagan) argued that Thuraissigiam’s claims
“fall within the heartland of habeas jurisdiction” because courts have long permitted habeas review of “a
range of legal and constitutional questions arising in immigration decisions” beyond detention itself,
including whether an individual may remain in the United States. Thus, in Justice Sotomayor’s view,
other forms of relief apart from release from custody fall within the scope of a request for habeas corpus.

Congressional Research Service
4
For that reason, Justice Sotomayor argued, Thuraissigiam could invoke the Suspension Clause to obtain
habeas review of his legal challenge to his expedited removal order, including the credible fear
determination. Further, Justice Sotomayor argued, because Thuraissigiam was “within the territorial limits
of the United States” he could challenge his expedited removal on due process grounds.
Implications of the Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that aliens in expedited removal have very limited avenues to
challenge removal decisions, including credible fear determinations. While aliens detained at the border
may pursue habeas claims, the Court has construed those protections as being limited to challenges to the
legality of their detention, not claims related to their ability to seek relief from removal. Furthermore, the
Court’s decision underscores that aliens seeking initial entry into the United States have limited due
process protections regarding their applications for admission. The Court’s decision signals that limited
due process protections may attach in removal proceedings involving aliens who have physically entered
the United States, but have not “established connections” with the country (i.e., those apprehended near
the border soon after their unlawful entry), and are still considered to be “on the threshold” of entry.
But the Court’s decision calls into question whether these limitations would apply to aliens apprehended
farther into the interior of the United States. Until recently, immigration authorities have applied
expedited removal only for aliens apprehended at or near the border. The Department of Homeland
Security has expanded expedited removal to the full degree authorized by INA § 235(b)(1), to cover
certain unlawfully present aliens in any part of the United States who have been in the country less than
two years. In his concurrence, Justice Breyer suggested that a “person apprehended years after she
crossed our borders clandestinely and started a life in this country” may be entitled to a broader range of
habeas review under the Suspension Clause. The majority opinion also recognized that aliens who have
“established connections” in the United States have more robust due process protections. In
Thuraissigiam, the Court did not assess the nature of those connections, beyond determining that an alien
apprehended 25 yards from the border could be “treated for due process purposes as if stopped at the
border.” But the Court’s decision may inform how lower courts consider ongoing constitutional
challenges to the expansion of expedited removal into the interior of the United States.

Author Information

Hillel R. Smith

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.

Congressional Research Service
5
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10510 · VERSION 1 · NEW