Aziz V. Trump: CrowdJustice Launches in the US

> This Court has long held that an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative. As we explained in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 770 (1950), however, once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly. Our cases have frequently suggested that a continuously present resident alien is entitled to a fair hearing when threatened with deportation, and, although we have only rarely held that the procedures provided by the executive were inadequate, we developed the rule that a continuously present permanent resident alien has a right to due process in such a situation.

Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33 (1982) (citations omitted).

That applies even after leaving and returning to the country:

> Any doubts that Chew recognized constitutional rights in the resident alien returning from a brief trip abroad were dispelled by Rosenberg v. Fleuti, where we described Chew as holding "that the returning resident alien is entitled as a matter of due process to a hearing on the charges underlying any attempt to exclude him." 374 U.S., at 460.

The wrongfulness of excluding permanent residents at the border without individualized process is so plain that the White House ultimately backed away from that interpretation of the order last night. But in the meantime, CBP violated the Constitutional rights of a number of green card holders.

Also, the facts are bad for the government: https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/dullesdetainees ("We filed originally on the evening of January 28th, asking Judge Brinkema to issue a Temporary Restraining Order to stop deportations from Dulles and to ensure those detained were provided lawyers. That order was granted almost immediately, but Customs and Border Protection officers at Dulles refused to comply.").

It is very possible that even individual CBP officers will be held liable for those violations. Ordinarily, officers are protected by qualified immunity for actions taken under the color of law. But qualified immunity does not apply where the right was not "clearly established." Usually, that is a big hurdle in these sorts of lawsuits, but here there is squarely-applicable Supreme Court precedent.