Published July 22, 2026 at 11:47 AM ET · Updated July 23, 2026 at 12:07 PM ET
Fifth Circuit rules illegal aliens hold no constitutional right to remain in US
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that illegal aliens do not have a constitutional right to roam free in the United States. The decision affirms that unauthorized immigrants lack constitutional protections to remain in the country.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Daily Caller reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 1 hr ago from Instapundit. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Yamataya v. Fisher held that an alien who has entered the United States, lawfully or not, is a person under the Fifth Amendment and cannot be removed without due process at minimum notice and a hearing. Thuraissigiam narrowed that for border apprehensions. A ruling that unauthorized immigrants lack a right to remain does not erase the process owed before removal.
Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher, Immigrant and Chinese Inspector (The Japanese Immigrant Case) 189 U.S. 86 (1903)
Vote: Majority for the Court (Harlan); Brewer and Peckham dissenting. Exact 7-2 tally not… · Opinion: Harlan
Although Congress may commit exclusion and deportation to executive officers without judicial trial, an alien who has landed and become part of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam 591 U.S. 103 (2020)
Vote: 7-2 (five-justice majority opinion; Breyer and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment only) · Opinion: Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
As applied to Thuraissigiam — a Sri Lankan national apprehended 25 yards north of the border shortly after crossing unlawfully, placed in expedited removal, and found to lack credible fear — 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)'s limitation of habeas review to three narrow questions violates neither the Suspension Clause nor the Due Process Clause.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
