Mullin v. Doe · ¶99

In my view, this equal protection claim is barred by the statute. It falls within the plain text of §1254a(b)(5)(A)’s judicial-review bar. Respondents asked a federal court to “[s]et aside the termination of Haiti’s . . . designation as . . . unconstitutional” because it “was, at least in part, improperly motivated by animus and discriminatory intent based on race and ethnicity.” Amended Complaint in No. 25–cv– 2471 (D DC), ECF Doc. 74, pp. 84–86. By asking for a court order invalidating the Secretary’s decision to terminate Haiti’s designation, respondents sought precisely what Congress barred: “judicial review of ” the Secretary’s determination “with respect to the . . . termination . . . of a designation . . . of a foreign state.” §1254a(b)(5)(A). The statutory text does not distinguish statutory and constitutional claims; it bars all “judicial review.” Judicial review, of course,…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.