5-4 Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Nov 18, 2025
The discussion dives into the implications of habeas corpus in the context of expedited removals. Thuraissigiam's asylum claim highlights the complexities of the detention process. Alito's originalist interpretation raises eyebrows, while dissenting voices like Sotomayor spotlight significant misinterpretations of precedent. The hosts also tackle the urgency of judicial oversight to prevent unchecked removals and explore how political whims can threaten due process, all underscored by alarming deportation statistics.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Habeas Limited In Expedited Removal
- The Court ruled habeas corpus doesn't necessarily let immigrants in expedited removal seek federal review of deportation decisions.
- That decision effectively leaves frontline border officers with near-final authority over fast-track removals.
Thuraissigiam's Fast-Tracked Asylum Bid
- Vijaya Kumar Thuracigeum claimed asylum after being caught less than 50 yards from the southern border and entered expedited removal.
- He failed the credible-fear screening by a Border Patrol officer and then lost appeals to supervisors and an immigration judge.
Single Officer Decides Credible Fear
- Expedited removal gives a single immigration officer massive discretionary power to deny credible-fear claims.
- The officer's supervisor and an immigration judge often only reaffirm that initial finding.