Castro v. U.S. D.H.S. — immigration — affirmance — Smith
The Third Circuit issued a blockbuster immigration ruling today, holding that (1) federal courts lack jurisdiction to review challenges to expedited removal orders, and (2) the statute depriving courts of such jurisdiction does not violate the Suspension Clause.
On the statutory issue, the court joined a majority of courts to address the issue, citing opinions from the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits and rejecting opinions from the Ninth Circuit and two district courts.
On the Suspension Clause issue, the court admitted it was “very difficult.” The opinion summarized the issue thus:
Petitioners argue that the answer to the ultimate question presented on appeal – whether § 1252 violates the Suspension Clause – can be found without too much effort in the Supreme Court’s Suspension Clause jurisprudence, especially in I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), as well as in a series of cases from what has been termed the “finality era.” The government, on the other hand, largely views these cases as inapposite, and instead focuses our attention on what has been called the “plenary power doctrine” and on the Supreme Court cases that elucidate it. The challenge we face is to discern the manner in which these seemingly disparate, and perhaps even competing, constitutional fields interact. Ultimately, and for the reasons we will explain below, we conclude that Congress may, consonant with the Constitution, deny habeas review in federal court of claims relating to an alien’s application for admission to the country, at least as to aliens who have been denied initial entry or who, like Petitioners, were apprehended very near the border and, essentially, immediately after surreptitious entry into the country.
Joining Smith were Hardiman and Shwartz. Hardiman also briefly concurred dubitante to express doubt about the opinion’s reasoning on the Suspension Clause issue. Arguing counsel were Lee Gelernt of the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project for the appellants and Erez Reuveni for the government. A large number of amici participated, represented by an impressive array of local and national counsel, and the opinion thanked amici for their valuable contributions.
Given its importance, the case is an obvious candidate for a petition for en banc rehearing, but the panel composition makes me suspect that finding a majority for rehearing will be difficult.
Update: Steve Vladeck has early commentary on the opinion in a post on his Just Security blog here. And it’s harsh commentary: “incredibly novel and misleading,” “simply nuts,” and “hopefully, a strong candidate for en banc review.”
Update2: Noah Feldman has this critical commentary (“The decision is wrong, and the U.S. Supreme Court should review it”) on Bloomberg View.
Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII — civil — reversal — Ambro
Today the Third Circuit held that § 303(i) of the bankruptcy code does not preempt state-law claims predicated on the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition by non-debtors. The opinion creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit.
Joining Ambro were Jordan and Scirica. Arguing counsel were Lewis Pepperman of Stark & Stark for the appellants and Peter Levitt of Florida for the appellees.