Noncitizens' Limited Due Process Rights Spark Legal Battle Over Trump's Deportation Push

The debate over noncitizens' rights in deportation proceedings has reignited, with courts repeatedly challenging President Donald Trump’s push for swift removals. A new memorandum from the Heritage Foundation, penned by senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky, argues that noncitizens, particularly those in the U.S. illegally, have limited due process rights under the Constitution and congressional statutes.

Von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, emphasizes that while noncitizens enjoy the same protections as citizens in criminal cases—think right to a lawyer—their safeguards in immigration matters are far less robust. For example, migrants caught within two years of illegal entry can face near-instant deportation without a hearing, unless they claim asylum or fear persecution back home. But here’s the catch: asylum claims often clog the system, letting migrants slip through the cracks, a frustration for border enforcement advocates.

The issue exploded this week when a Washington, D.C. federal judge issued a 124-page ruling blocking Trump’s attempt to curb asylum claims, accusing the administration of rewriting immigration law. Attorney General Pam Bondi is already gearing up for an appeal. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, Trump’s immigration adviser, has taken to social media, bluntly stating, 'The only process illegals are due is deportation.' Bold words, but courts aren’t biting.

High-profile cases highlight the chaos. Kilmar Abrego Garcia claims he was deported to El Salvador despite a judge’s order. Deportees to Sudan faced inhumane conditions in Djibouti, arguing they got no fair shot. Others, sent to a Salvadoran megaprison under the Alien Enemies Act, say they were denied a chance to fight their removal. The Supreme Court, citing Justice Antonin Scalia’s 1993 ruling, insists noncitizens deserve some due process, including 'reasonable' notice and habeas corpus rights for those targeted under the Act.

The Heritage Foundation, a heavyweight in Republican policy circles, argues courts overstep when they expand noncitizens’ rights beyond what’s legally required. Von Spakovsky warns that the Supreme Court may need to step in to clarify where lower courts are crossing the line. As Trump’s deportation agenda faces legal hurdles, the tension between swift enforcement and constitutional protections remains a political lightning rod.