Court Rejects Haitians’ Bid for U.S. Asylum

The U.S. Supreme Court, deferring to the wishes of the Bush Administration, Monday rejected final legal appeals filed on behalf of thousands of Haitian refugees who had sought political asylum in the United States.

Under the 8-1 order, the U.S. government may continue to send home more than two-thirds of the nearly 16,000 Haitians who have fled their troubled nation in open boats since September, when a military coup toppled democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service said Monday that 5,155 of the Haitians have raised “plausible” claims for asylum and may remain on U.S. soil.

The State Department has contended persistently that the vast majority of Haitians were fleeing poverty, not political persecution that would have entitled them to asylum. In taking that position, the department discounted claims that some returning Haitians had been tortured, beaten and killed.

The high court action came on the day that military leaders in Haiti indicated they would accept the return of Aristide. On Sunday, the Organization of American States brokered an agreement in Washington that could allow Aristide to return to Haiti and permit the lifting of international sanctions that were imposed against the impoverished island nation after the September coup.

For nearly four months, lawyers in Miami had fought in the courts to halt the forced repatriation of the boat people.

But the Supreme Court--which gave no explanation for its denial Monday--has repeatedly said that decisions about refugees and immigrants should be left to government officials, not judges.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, aliens who have a “well-founded fear” of persecution based on a “political opinion” are entitled to asylum. The justices have interpreted that phrase narrowly to apply only to an alien’s distinct political views, not to a general fear of political violence.

On two occasions, a federal judge in Miami temporary blocked the repatriation of the Haitians to consider whether they were being denied due process of law. Most of the boat people were deemed ineligible for asylum based only on brief interviews aboard a Coast Guard cutter.

On Jan. 31, the high court lifted the judge’s order and cleared the way for the State Department to begin sending the boat people back to Haiti. Since then, 6,219 Haitians have been returned home from camps at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were housed after being picked up in open seas by U.S. Coast Guard cutters.

But lawyers for the Haitian Refugee Center continued to press their legal claims. It violates the Constitution and international law, they said, to send these refugees back “to a murderous regime that the United States had declared illegitimate.”

The lawyers also were prevented from speaking to the boat people, even when they were held for weeks at Guantanamo.

“We were barred from seeing our clients, even though they took journalists down there to speak to them,” Miami attorney Ira J. Kurzban said Monday.

But the Justice Department said that illegal immigrants picked up on the high seas do not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. In a strongly worded petition to the court, U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr said that meddling by lawyers and judges in Miami had cost the government $19 million and “encouraged more than 10,000 Haitians with no viable claims for asylum to risk their lives at sea for nothing.”

“We respectfully submit that it is time for this court to determine that ‘enough is enough,’ ” he said.

Only Justice Harry A. Blackmun dissented from the court majority in the case, contending that it deserved a full hearing. Justice Clarence Thomas, who had voted to delay the repatriation on Jan. 31, joined the majority Monday in voting to end the case (Haitian Refugee Center vs. James Baker, 91-1292).

“I am deeply concerned” about allegations that the Haitians are persecuted upon their return home, Thomas said. “However, this matter must be addressed by the political branches” of government, not the courts, he added.

So far, the Bush Administration had refused either to grant the Haitians’ asylum or to permit them a temporary reprieve until order is restored on the island.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impose a six-month moratorium on the return of the Haitians but the White House has said that it would likely veto such legislation.

In other actions Monday, the high court:

--Agreed to rule on whether the full Senate must sit in trial for the impeachment of federal judges and other U.S. officials (Nixon vs. U.S., 91-740). Impeached U.S. Judge Walter Nixon of Mississippi said that his constitutional rights were violated when a 12-member committee of the Senate heard evidence against him.

--Dismissed a legal challenge to a Japanese electronic giant’s purchase of American entertainment conglomerate MCA and its subsidiary, Universal Pictures (Young vs. Matsushita, 91-1022). A group of citizens filed suit contending that the purchase of MCA by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. could lead to “an insidious form” of thought control in America. But the suit was dismissed for failing to raise a true legal issue.

--Agreed to decide whether accountants and lawyers can be held liable under the federal anti-racketeering law when an investment empire collapses. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allows broad lawsuits against persons involved in financial fraud but the courts have been divided over whether advisers such as accountants and lawyers can be held liable, along with the managers of a failed enterprise. The court will hear the case (Reves vs. Ernst & Young, 91-886) in the fall.

--Refused to hear Leona Helmsley’s appeal of her tax evasion conviction (Helmsley vs. U.S., 91-778). Portrayed as the queen of the Helmsley hotel empire, she was convicted in 1989 of avoiding $1.2 million in taxes by charging personal expenses to her business. She was given a four-year jail term but earlier won an order granting her a new sentence.