Full Breakdown
Constitutional Rights and Noncitizens: Judge Amul Thapar's Controversial Dissent
12/18/2025, 7:52:41 AM
Core Event: Judge Thapar's Interpretation of Constitutional Rights
Federal appeals court Judge Amul Thapar, appointed by President Donald Trump, has asserted that the U.S. Constitution's protections do not extend to noncitizen immigrants. This claim emerged during a recent case involving Guatemalan citizen Milder Escobar-Temal, who challenged his conviction for unlawfully possessing firearms. Thapar's dissenting opinion, which partially agreed with the majority ruling to uphold a federal law barring illegal immigrants from firearm possession, argued that the Constitution's preamble, "We the People," refers solely to U.S. citizens.
Key Arguments Presented by Judge Thapar
Thapar contended that historical traditions necessitate the exclusion of illegal aliens from constitutional rights. He stated, “Only U.S. citizens enjoy Second Amendment rights,” and extended this reasoning to the First and Fourth Amendments, which protect free speech and guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, respectively. He criticized the majority's view that noncitizens with "substantial connections" to the U.S. could claim constitutional protections, questioning the courts' role in determining what constitutes an American identity.
Official Statements & Responses
The Trump administration has supported Thapar's interpretation, with legal ally Mike Davis asserting that “We the People” signifies “the sovereign citizens,” emphasizing that illegal aliens do not possess equal constitutional rights. Conversely, Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, who authored the majority opinion, argued that Supreme Court precedent allows noncitizens who establish substantial connections to enjoy constitutional rights.
Criticism & Opposition
Thapar's dissent has drawn significant criticism. Legal scholars and commentators, including Pepperdine Law professor Jake Charles, have described his views as an alarming attempt to undermine the rights of noncitizens amid a broader anti-immigration agenda. Columnist Jamelle Bouie labeled Thapar's dissent as “historical and legal fan fiction,” suggesting it serves to validate Trump's controversial policies.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
While Thapar's dissent emphasizes a strict interpretation of constitutional rights as applicable only to citizens, the majority opinion highlights a more inclusive approach, suggesting that noncitizens can possess rights once they establish substantial ties to the country. This divergence raises questions about the future of constitutional protections for immigrants in the U.S.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Put simply, only citizens who consented to be governed could claim the rights necessary to govern themselves,” — Amul Thapar, U.S. Circuit Judge
- “This is a startling read of history [and] precedent,” — Jake Charles, Pepperdine Law Professor
- “Illegal aliens do not have equal constitutional rights. We never gave it to them. We have the sovereign power,” — Mike Davis, Legal Ally
What's Next
The implications of Thapar's dissent may influence ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration and constitutional rights, particularly as the Trump administration continues to pursue a stringent anti-immigration agenda. Legal experts anticipate further challenges in courts regarding the rights of noncitizens, potentially leading to significant shifts in U.S. immigration policy and constitutional interpretation.
