BROADCASTS.com

b"QUESTION PRESENTED:\\nRespondent is an inadmissible alien who was apprehended almost immediately after illegally crossing the U.S. border and was placed into expedited removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(l). An asylum officer conducted a credible-fear interview and found that respondent lacked a credible fear of persecution on a protected ground or a credible fear of torture. Upon de novo review, an immigration judge reached the same conclusions and respondent's expedited-removal order became final. Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it did not raise the kinds of habeas challenges to expedited-removal orders that are permitted under 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Section 1252(e)(2) violated the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, \\xa7 9, Cl. 2, as applied to respondent.\\n\\nThe question presented is\\xa0\\n\\n whether, as applied to respondent, Section 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n--- \\n\\nSupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support"