The Landmark Immigration Case DHS v. Thuraissigiam

In the controversial landmark 2020 case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court upheld a law that limited habeas review of expedited removal proceedings as constitutional under the Suspension Clause. In 2017, Sri Lankan Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam was apprehended near the border in the U.S. An asylum officer interviewed him, found no credible fear of persecution, and ordered him placed in expedited removal. Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition, claiming that the expedited removal violated his due process rights and the Suspension Clause. Professors Cristina Rodriguez of Yale Law School and Adam Cox of NYU Law, leading immigration law experts and co-authors of The President and Immigration Law, explain how Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court, based his finding on his interpretation of the habeas law as it stood in 1789 and went further in limiting due process rights of noncitizens at the border to only those statutorily given. The professors discuss what's troubling about the Court's opinion and its potential impact on the rights of asylum seekers.


Professor Cristina Rodriguez is the Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law at Yale Law School.

Professor Adam Cox is the Robert A. Kindler Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.

Additional Resources

Full interview on the president's powers over immigration policy with Professors Cristina Rodriguez and Adam Cox: Shadow Immigration and the Power of the Presidency.