In March, we will be in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the right to a day in court for asylum seekers and other vulnerable noncitizens. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) vs. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam considers whether immigrants are entitled to seek judicial review of their expedited removal orders in federal court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our argument that the Constitution guarantees that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in federal court.

That decision was a significant step towards ensuring that vulnerable asylum seekers and others will get a fair shot to prove their claims for protection, which are guaranteed by our immigration laws and the U.S. Constitution. The administration, however, subsequently challenged the ruling.

The stakes are high: The administration’s extreme arguments threaten to wipe out rights for millions of people, who have built their lives in the United States for decades.

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam fled his home in Sri Lanka to escape torture, beatings, and likely death. Vijayakumar is Tamil, a member of an ethnic minority that the Sri Lankan government has subjected to a well-documented campaign of human rights violations. After government officers abducted and beat him, Vijayakumar fled the country and sought asylum in the United States.

But his claim was denied after a cursory and inadequate interview. Like many asylum seekers who reach the United States, Vijayakumar was placed into the “expedited removal” system. That system, created by Congress in 1996, is an alternative to the normal deportation system and applies to certain immigrants — particularly those who arrive without a visa or other immigration papers. For years, expedited removal applied almost exclusively at the border, but the administration sought to expand the program nationwide and to people who have been in the country for years. That expansion was blocked in court.

Under expedited removal, an asylum seeker has an initial short interview with an asylum officer to determine if he has a “credible fear” of return to his home country. This is supposed to be a low threshold screening interview, intended to ensure that anyone with a potentially meritorious claim is not immediately removed but instead gets a full asylum hearing as part of the regular deportation system.

If the asylum officer believes that the person does not have a credible fear, and the person wishes to appeal that decision, the next step is an often extremely cursory review in front of an immigration “judge” — who is actually an executive branch officer employed by the Department of Justice. If the immigration judge agrees with the asylum officer, then that, according to the government, is the end of the line: The asylum seeker never gets to take his case to any court and is removed “without further hearing or review.”

On behalf of Vijayakumar, the ACLU filed a case in federal court challenging this exclusion of vulnerable asylum seekers from their day in court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, striking down the limits on judicial review as unconstitutional.

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the Constitution prevents the government from suspending access to the writ of habeas corpus except in certain extraordinary circumstances involving rebellion or invasion of the country. Habeas has a long and important history, tracing back to England, as a primary check against the government’s ability to restrain people’s liberty without legal justification.

As the Supreme Court has explained, the framers of the Constitution “viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom.” The Suspension Clause guarantees that this “vital instrument” remains available, even when it is inconvenient to the government.

That constitutional provision has always meant that courts stand ready to ensure that the government plays by the rules when it comes to deportations. As the Supreme Court said, looking back on a century of its case law in 2001, “some ‘judicial intervention in deportation cases’ is unquestionably ‘required by the Constitution.’”

Oral argument in the case will be held on March 2. The question before the Justices will be whether to adhere to the Court’s prior decisions, and hold that Vijayakumar is entitled to make his case to a neutral federal judge. If it does so, Vijayakumar should finally get what he has so far been denied — a fair shot to establish his case for asylum and secure safety here in the U.S.. If it does not, the implications for asylum seekers and noncitizens across the country would be extraordinary, raising the specter that lawlessness by immigration agents could be totally immune from court review. Especially in light of the abuses we have already seen in this administration’s immigration policies, that kind of impunity would be unacceptable — and unconstitutional.

Nicky Vogt, Communications Strategist, ACLU

On Wednesday, yet another federal appeals court ruled that allowing a transgender boy to use the boys’ restrooms and locker rooms does not violate the rights of cisgender students or parents. The decision is a resounding victory for trans youth and all who care about gender justice in schools and beyond.

At this point, two federal appeals courts have rejected the arguments from those who want to keep transgender people out of public life – including schools. They argued that protecting trans students violates Title IX, the law that protects all of us from sex discrimination in education. And in each case, courts rejected these arguments.

One of the most awful parts of these cases, for me, is the other side’s argument that just using the restroom becomes an act of sexual harassment if the person using it is trans. Given how often trans people face actual sexual harassment and violence, it is galling when our opponents attempt to pervert the law and use it as a weapon to drive us out of public space. They say that our very presence in public facilities is so offensive that schools have an obligationto kick us out. The court roundly rejected that argument, stating that the “use of facilities for their intended purpose, without more, does not constitute an act of harassment simply because a person is transgender.”

This Oregon school district did the right thing when it chose not to discriminate against a transgender young person by giving him equal access to facilities, and reminding teachers and staff of their duty to prevent bullying. As the court said, the school had “the legitimate purpose of protecting student safety and well-being, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status.” What’s more, “nowhere does the statute explicitly state, or even suggest, that schools may not allow transgender students to use the facilities that are most consistent with their gender identity.”

Throughout this case, trans youth and allies from Oregon and around the country have rallied to insist on fairness and decency. Tyler Warner, a transgender high school student from Sutherlin, Oregon who was targeted in a similar suit, says, “I want every trans kid in Oregon to know that they have rights. Being segregated into a single-user bathroom isn’t ok.” Trans students also spoke out in an amicus brief, including K.E., a transgender boy in Idaho who had to give up cross country because he wasn’t allowed to use the boys’ locker room. He heard about a transgender wrestler in Texas and all the “challenges he dealt with,” and “did not even want to try it.”

“I want every trans kid in Oregon to know that they have rights. Being segregated into a single-user bathroom isn’t ok.”

Tyler Warner, high school student from Oregon targeted for being trans

As exciting as this victory is, it comes at a moment when trans youth are under renewed attack. After failing in their attempts to push trans people out by focusing on restrooms and locker rooms, our opponents have shifted gears to target trans people by trying to keep us from getting the healthcare many of us need, and keeping us out of sports. Dozens of states have introduced bills targeting trans youth. The same day that this federal court ruled that protecting trans students doesn’t violate Title IX, a lawsuit was filed attacking trans student athletes in Connecticut, in yet another misuse of this federal law. As Terry Miller, one of the trans girls targeted in this new law suit says, “There is a long history of excluding Black girls from sports and policing our bodies. I am a runner and I will keep running and keep fighting for my existence, my community, and my rights.”

“There is a long history of excluding Black girls from sports and policing our bodies. I am a runner and I will keep running and keep fighting for my existence, my community, and my rights.”

Terry Miller, student athlete targeted for being trans

We need to make sure trans youth like Tyler, K.E., and Terry never have to fight alone. I encourage you to tell your local lawmakers that trans students belong in our schools and that these attacks need to end.

Gabriel Arkles, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU LGBT & HIV Project