The expedited removal process is applied to individuals who unlawfully enters the United States and can be ordered removed without further hearing or review. If the individual seeks asylum, however, he or she is provided additional screening before an asylum officer, a supervisory officer and an immigration judge to determine whether the person has a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to his or her home country.

Thuraissigiam, a member of an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka, entered the US illegally and was arrested 25 yards north of the Mexican border. He applied for asylum, telling the officer that he had been working at his farm in his home country when a group of men apprehended him and severely beat him. He said he didn’t know who they were and why they had chosen him. He was denied the chance to seek asylum.

The asylum officer determined he had not established a credible fear of persecution, a decision affirmed by the supervising officer and the immigration judge. Under the law, after the denial, Thuraissigiam was ineligible to challenge the finding in federal court.

Thuraissigiam’s lawyers at the ACLU went to federal district court arguing that the expedited removal outlined in the law violated his due process rights stripping him of a “meaningful opportunity” to establish his claims.

“Every person within US territory is entitled to due process,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt told the justices.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the law violated a part of the Constitution called the Suspension Clause, that would allow Thuraissigiam, even as a non-citizen, to have the opportunity to challenge his detention.

The Suspension Clause prohibits the government from depriving someone of their liberty without the opportunity for a court to review the legality of the government’s action.

In court, lawyers for the Trump administration pointed to past precedent distinguishing between an individual who has lawfully entered the country and become part of the population, and someone who had entered only clandestinely and been in the country less than two years. They said the law outlining expedited removal had been passed so that the system would not be abused.

In a strong dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact of the majority opinion could have broader consequences for US immigration law and how noncitizens or undocumented immigrants are treated.

“Taken to its extreme, a rule conditioning due process rights on lawful entry would permit Congress to constitutionally eliminate all procedural protections for any noncitizen the Government deems unlawfully admitted and summarily deport them no matter how many decades they have lived here, how settled and integrated they are in their communities, or how many members of their family are U.S. citizens or residents,” Sotomayor wrote.

“This judicially fashioned line-drawing is not administrable, threatens to create arbitrary divisions between noncitizens in this country subject to removal proceedings, and, most important, lacks any basis in the Constitution.”