Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Supreme Court of the United States
1ConcurrenceJustice Thomas
I join the Court's opinion, which correctly concludes that respondent's Suspension Clause argument fails because he does not seek a writ of habeas corpus. I write separately to address the original meaning of the Suspension Clause, which guarantees that "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. The Founders appear to have understood "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" to guarantee freedom from discretionary detention, and a "suspen [sion]" of that…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment; Dissent.
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Zadvydas v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. CyrSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Hamdi v. RumsfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.