Supreme Court adds new cases to its docket By Phillip A. Howard
The U.S. Supreme Court have head cases on many issues this year, including LGBT rights, non-unanimous juries, abortion, and guns. The court recently add a few more issues to the docket.
A Honduran family seeking asylum prior to being captured by the U.S. border patrol. (Tamir Kalifa/NY Times)
Asylum Seekers
One of the biggest pending cases may have a significant impact on immigrants seeking asylum in the United States, and could have serious implications on the right to habeas corpus.
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a member of Sri Lanka’s Tamil ethnic minority, was apprehended 25 yards north of the Mexican border. Upon being apprehended, Mr. Thuraissigiam claims that he has a right to a hearing.
The federal government is claiming that his deportation can be expedited based on a 1996 law.
“This court has never before allowed the elimination of judicial review over the legality of deportations,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Mr. Thuraissigiam.
Gelernt believes Thuraissigiam’s claims also fall in line with documented claims of abuse by Sri Lankans on Tamils.” “There is an exact M.O. on how Tamil people are persecuted in Sri Lanka,” Gelerent contends. “Men arrive in a white van. They abduct the person. They beat and torture him.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared the 1996 law unconstitutional.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Obamacare
For the third time since its passage in 2010, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The issue at hand involves the individual mandate, a controversial portion of the law that requires individuals to have health insurance or face a tax penalty.
Republican state officials argue that when Congress eliminated the penalty for people who did not obtain health insurance, the law began unconstitutional.
In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with this rationale, but declined to rule if the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate consequently made the entire ACA unconstitutional.
Phillip Howard is a graduate student at Utica College
