Two opinions appeared this week, one particularly a big win for the Trump administration in its attempt to curtail illegal immigration.
First was Liu vs. SEC, where an 8-to-sorta-1 decision vacated and remanded a lower court ruling on disgorgements. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in that he would reverse instead of remand because he believes that the statute at hand does not allow for disgorgement.
Next was Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, where a 7-2 decision (Justices Kagan and Sotomayor dissented). Habeas Corpus protections – unlawful detention – in this case do not extend to”… immigrants seeking asylum. Alito writes “…respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.” – and that is not what the writ of habeas corpus is about. The decision made the left blogosphere generally unhappy.
Also, keep on your radar – three high-profile decisions are at hand and may have opinions released over the next couple of weeks. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is about the constitutionality of the structure of the CFPB; June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, over the requirement of abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in Louisiana; and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, regarding tax credits used at religious schools.
After that, we will probably have an end to the present session until the fall.