Supreme Court skeptical of granting new hearings to asylum seekers

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared unlikely Monday to give asylum seekers claiming fear of persecution abroad a federal court hearing to avoid quick removal from the United States.

While the court's conservatives and liberals seemed divided on the question, a turning point came near the end of the one-hour oral argument when Chief Justice John Roberts said the case could lead to a "significant expansion" of new claims.

"Anybody can get to a point of entry," Roberts said, prompting the lawyer representing Sri Lanka native Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam to acknowledge that about 9,500 asylum seekers fit the same category. 

Only 30 petitions for federal court hearings have been filed so far, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said. But Justice Department Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said the figure is closer to 100 and warned of "the potential for a flood" of cases if the Supreme Court rules for Thuraissigiam.

More:President Trump's immigration crackdown inundates Supreme Court

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

The case represents a crucial test of the Trump administration's effort to speed the removal of thousands of migrants without granting federal court hearings. The process is allowed under a law passed by Congress in 1996.

The California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which has drawn Trump's ire for its decisions on immigration, ruled last year that efforts to remove asylum seekers under such "expedited removal" procedures violated their constitutional rights.

The Justice Department argues that extending the streamlined process could add years of court wrangling. After losing the case, the administration in July expanded the expedited removal system to incorporate asylum seekers apprehended anywhere in the country who have not been continuously present in the USA for two years.

The case is one of several challenging the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on migrants seeking asylum after crossing the Mexican border.

Just last Friday, a federal appeals court blocked the administration’s policy of returning asylum seekers to Mexico to await court hearings, a practice immigrant rights advocates have denounced as inhumane and deadly.

Last September, the justices temporarily upheld a different policy denying asylum to those who do not seek protection first from a country they pass through, such as Mexico.

But in 2018, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a policy aimed at denying asylum to migrants crossing the border illegally rather than at designated crossings. 

Trump's three-year crackdown on immigration has led to a surge in lawsuits reaching the Supreme Court, where a rebuilt conservative majority increasingly is paying dividends for him.

In the past year, the justices also let the administration deter poor immigrants and redirect military funds to build a wall along the southern border. Federal officials' efforts to force cooperation from states and cities could be next.

The high court has heard arguments in eight immigration cases since its term began in October, including a challenge to Trump's plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that has helped nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants work without fear of deportation. 

The program was created by President Barack Obama in 2012 to help young, undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. During oral argument in November, the court's conservative justices said the administration had ample policy reasons to end it. A ruling is expected by June, in the midst of the presidential election campaign.

In Monday's case, Thuraissigiam was arrested 25 yards north of the Mexican border and immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings. Immigration officials determined that he did not have a credible fear of persecution, even though he is a member of Sri Lanka's Tamil ethnic minority that faces beatings and torture at the hands of the government.

Gelernt told the justices that such asylum seekers "are removed too quickly. They're at the border (and) they can't find lawyers."

Associate Justice Elena Kagan said Thuraissigiam had "the best kind of claim you can make" for a new hearing, and her liberal colleagues seemed to agree. 

But Associate Justice Samuel Alito said a ruling in his favor would be "far-reaching."