# DHS v. Thuraissigiam **Status: stub — expand.** Vote counts to be verified against Oyez before they are stated here. The Court held that the [[Suspension Clause]] does not entitle a recent unlawful entrant placed in [[Expedited Removal]] to judicial review of his asylum screening. **8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)** — which allows habeas only on identity, whether the petitioner has a status that exempts him, and whether an order exists — is all the Constitution requires for such a person. **Why it matters:** the single most consequential habeas holding for the 2025–26 removal pipeline. Combined with the **2025 nationwide expansion of expedited removal** and the two-year continuous-presence rule, *Thuraissigiam*'s narrow category swallows people who have lived in the United States for years. The doctrine did not change; the population it applies to did. See [[Immigration Removal Pipeline]] and [[Habeas Corpus Timeline]]. ## See Also - [[Habeas Corpus Timeline]] · [[Habeas Corpus]] · [[Suspension Clause]]