COLUMBIA UNDERGRADUATE LAW REVIEW
Erosion of the Asylum-Seeker’s Right to Due Process: Department of Homeland Security v Thuraissigiam Revisited Shreya Shivakumar | Barnard College Edited by: Sarah Wang, Cassandra Cordie, Claire Ellis, Dongjae Min, Kate Strong, Derek Ng, David Cho Abstract
Immigration law has become increasingly politicized in recent decades, strongly divided along partisan lines and influenced by the turning tides of public opinion. The recent surge of migrants over the U.S.-Mexico border and refugees fleeing humanitarian crises have exposed longstanding cracks in the U.S. immigration system. The recent Trump administration was the subject of harsh criticism from immigrants’ rights advocates and the media after evidence began to surface showing inhumane conditions in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers.1 Images of teary children being separated from their families at the border, then indefinitely detained in cages where they are prone to abuse and human rights violations, rightfully evoked concerned outrage from the American public. In light of these failings, the Supreme Court was forced to confront whether it is legal to allow the executive branch such expansive authority over immigration policy with minimal judicial oversight. In the landmark case Department of Homeland Security v Thuraissigiam,2 the Court upheld the constitutionality of limited judicial review given to noncitizens facing expedited removal orders, and, in doing so, allowed executive power in the immigration courts to function freely without restraint. This article considers the extent to which the Court has historically afforded non-citizens constitutional rights and examines the implications of the Thuraissigiam decision concerning future immigration policies. Drawing upon legal precedent concerning the rights of habeas corpus and due process for immigrants, this paper argues that Department of Homeland Security v Thuraissigiam has contributed to the steady erosion of the asylum-seeker’s due process rights and has stripped the judicial branch of its ability to check executive power within
31
