Supreme Court skeptical of new hearings for asylum seekers

While the Conservatives and the court liberals seemed divided on the issue, a turning point came towards the end of the hour-long oral argument when Chief Justice John Roberts said the case could lead to a “significant expansion” of new claims.

“Anyone can go to a port of entry,” said Roberts, prompting native Sri Lankan lawyer Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam to admit that around 9,500 asylum seekers fall into the same category.

So far, only 30 petitions for Federal Court hearings have been filed, said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelernt. But Justice Minister Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said the figure was closer to 100 and warned of “the potential for a flood” case if the Supreme Court ruled for Thuraissigiam.

The case represents a crucial test of the Trump administration’s efforts to expedite the removal of thousands of migrants without granting federal court hearings. The process is authorized by law passed by Congress in 1996.

The California-based US Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit, which has drawn Trump’s wrath for his immigration decisions, ruled last year that efforts to deport applicants asylum in these “expedited removal” procedures violated their constitutional rights.

The Department of Justice argues that extending the simplified process could add years of legal wrangling. After losing the file, the administration expanded the expedited removal system in July to include refugee claimants apprehended anywhere in the country who have not been permanently present in the United States for two years.

The case is one of many challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on asylum seekers after crossing the Mexican border.

Last September, judges temporarily maintained a different policy denying asylum to those who do not first seek protection from a transit country, such as Mexico.

But in 2018, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a policy to deny asylum to migrants crossing the border illegally rather than to designated crossing points.

Over the past year, judges have also let the administration deter poor immigrants and redirect military funds to build a wall along the southern border. Federal officials’ efforts to force the cooperation of states and cities may be next.

The high court has heard arguments in eight immigration cases since the start of his term in October, including a challenge to Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action Program for Arrivals of Children (DACA), which helped nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants to work without fear of being deported.

The program was created by President Barack Obama in 2012 to help young undocumented immigrants brought to the country when they were children. In an oral argument in November, the conservative judges of the court said that the administration had many political reasons for ending the procedure. A decision is expected for June, during the presidential election campaign.

In Monday’s case, Thuraissigiam was arrested 25 meters north of the Mexican border and immediately placed in an expedited eviction proceeding. Immigration officials determined that he did not have a credible fear of persecution, even though he is a member of the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, who is at risk of being beaten and tortured by the government.

Gelernt told the judges that these asylum seekers “are returned too quickly. They are at the border (and) they cannot find lawyers”.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan said Thuraissigiam had “the best type of claim you can make” for a new hearing, and her Liberal colleagues seemed to agree.

But assistant judge Samuel Alito said a ruling in his favor would be “far-reaching.”