SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Dating back to English common law, the writ of habeas corpus has provided a right to judicial review of the legality of restraints on one’s liberty and has been understood to be available to both citizens and foreigners within the realm. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 300-302 (2001). The common law experience was adopted by the Framers, who understood that the writ served as “the great bulwark of personal lib-erty; since it is the appropriate remedy to ascertain whether any person is rightfully in confinement or not … .” Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1333 (1833). Accordingly, this Court has said that the Suspension Clause protects, at minimum, the writ as it existed in 1789. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 301. At that time and in the centuries since, this Nation’s courts have reviewed habeas petitions filed by persons in the United States—citizens and noncitizens alike—regardless of when or where they were apprehended. This review included instances in which authorities detained people in order to remove them from the jurisdiction, as in cases of deserting seamen and extradition. The government cannot circumvent the Suspension Clause by creating a new legislative classification for certain noncitizens present in the United States and then maintaining that this new category of persons has no entitlement to any constitutional protections with respect to their removal. Congress’s plenary authority over noncitizens remains subject to the limitations of the Constitution. E.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940-941 (1983). #habeascorpus #ConstitutionalProvisions #nonresident #NonCitizen

Posted by MalikaDulce at 2020-10-15 06:16:22 UTC