An Entity of Type: case, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause. The Department of Homeland Security placed Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam into "expedited removal" proceedings after Thuraissigiam was apprehended 25 yards (23 m) from the southern U.S. border after crossing it illegally. Thuraissigiam, a Tamil former resident of Sri Lanka, pled for asylum asserting that he fled his country to "escape torture, beatings, and likely death". An immigration officer did not find his fear of persecution credible, and an immigration judge agreed with the officer's findings. Thuraissigiam, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which a U.S. district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that limits the judicial review of decisions made by immigration officers. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the section of the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Suspension Clause. On June 25, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court found that Thuraissigiam's claim for habeas corpus, to seek additional administrative review of his asylum claim, was beyond the scope established for habeas corpus in the Constitution, to secure release from unlawful detention. The majority opinion further rejected the argument that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment also compels judicial review of Thuraissigiam's claim. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 62723245 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 14872 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1025867948 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • --03-02
dbp:argueyear
  • 2020 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, (en)
dbp:concurrence
  • Thomas (en)
  • Breyer (en)
dbp:decidedate
  • --06-25
dbp:decideyear
  • 2020 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Sotomayor (en)
dbp:docket
  • 19 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • Department of Homeland Security, et al., petitioners v. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam (en)
dbp:holding
  • The limits set by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 on review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under does not violate the Suspension Clause. (en)
dbp:joinconcurrence
  • Ginsburg (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Kagan (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (en)
dbp:majority
  • Alito (en)
dbp:oralargument
dbp:otherSource
  • Supreme Court (en)
dbp:otherUrl
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 140 (xsd:integer)
dbp:prior
  • 25920.0
dbp:uspage
  • ___ (en)
dbp:usvol
  • 591 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Department of Homeland Security, et al., petitioners v. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License