Supreme Court allows quick removal of asylum-seekers

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: USA Today

Supreme Court allows quick removal of asylum-seekers
Richard Wolf
USA TODAY

Published 10:10 a.m. ET Jun. 25, 2020 Updated 10:37 a.m. ET Jun. 25, 2020

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed a green light Thursday to the Trump administration in its effort to speed up the removal of those seeking asylum.

The court ruled that asylum-seekers claiming fear of persecution abroad do not have to be given a federal court hearing before quick removal from the United States.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The case, one of many to come before the high court involving the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, concerned Sri Lanka native Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam. He was arrested 25 yards north of the Mexican border and immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings.

{snip}

Immigration officials determined that Thuraissigiam did not have a credible fear of persecution, even though he is a member of Sri Lanka's Tamil ethnic minority that faces beatings and torture at the hands of the government.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-trump-administration-removing-asylum-seekers/3087251001/

---

Right, Twitter's no good for LBN. I get it. I'll come up with something.

-- -- -- -- --

Original:

Scotus rules for Dept of Homeland Security in immigration case. That's the court's only opinion of the day, Tune in next week

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- --

WiseGuyHat Retweeted

https://twitter.com/Popehat

Alito, who wrote the opinion in Thuraissigiam, did not appear to understand the facts of the case at oral arguments.

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. 7-2 decision, opinion by Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting. Text here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Hey, thanks.

Sheesh, there's nothing about this at Google News. Something will show up.

[Laelth]

3. At 7-2 I must assume that the government's case had merit.

Sigh.

Kudos to Justices Kagan and Sotomayor for sticking their necks out in defense of the oppressed people of the world. History, I hope, will be on their side.

-Laelth

[iluvtennis]

4. ++ agree. nt

[FBaggins]

5. The two liberal concurrences help with understanding that

They agreed that the ruling was correct in this case... but thought that it should be a narrow ruling impacting just this case. The ruling sets a larger precedent that they think is unwarranted (that there could be scenarios where this ruling would control... but they wouldn't rule the same way).

[Laelth]

7. Good to know. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Polybius]

6. Does anyone know why RGB and Breyer voted this way?

Was it the right decision? I usually trust whatever RGB does.

[Laelth]

8. That's a safe bet. I seldom disagree with RBG.

Evidently, there’s a concurrence that she joined—agreeing with the majority (in this instance) but in which fears are expressed about establishing an inappropriate precedent.

-Laelth

[cstanleytech]

9. Per the article

"The court's other two liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with the judgment but said they would have applied it only to Thuraissigiam's claim."