The decision carries implications for the rights of asylum-seekers facing expedited removal, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus and the judiciary’s role in checking executive power.
Aditi Shah is a J.D. Candidate at Harvard Law School, where she is a clinical student at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and a research assistant for Professor William Rubenstein. She holds a B.A. in History and Health: Science, Society and Policy from Brandeis University.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
As the pandemic goes on, lawsuits in federal courts have proliferated across the country challenging the inadequate response of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the spread of the coronavirus.
Is an asylum-seeker facing expedited removal constitutionally entitled to judicial review of his claims that the government failed to follow the law? An upcoming Supreme Court case tackles that question, with implications for immigrants’ lives and the expedited removal system.
A U.S. district court has limited the ability of immigration detainees to use an important procedural tool to challenge their detention. With the ruling, detainees are restricted in their ability to bring a Rule 23(b)(2) class action to assert a right to individualized bond hearings under the Due Process Clause. The order lays bare the consequences of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez and foreshadows increased difficulty for detained asylum-seekers hoping to challenge their prolonged imprisonment without bond hearings.