Fact check: Are non-citizens constitutionally allowed due process

1. Summary of the results

The analyses overwhelmingly confirm that non-citizens are constitutionally entitled to due process rights. Multiple sources cite the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as the constitutional foundation for these protections ^{[1] [2]}.

The Supreme Court has definitively ruled on this matter, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing in a unanimous 1976 Supreme Court opinion that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect "every person within the jurisdiction of the United States" ^[2]. The Court has specifically reaffirmed that immigrants facing deportation are entitled to challenge the legality of their detention ^[1].

Key due process protections for non-citizens include:

• Fair hearings and access to legal representation ^[3]
• Protection against arbitrary government actions ^[1]
• The right to challenge detention and deportation proceedings ^[1]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important nuances about how due process rights are implemented in practice. The analyses reveal that the specifics of due process can vary significantly depending on the individual's status and circumstances ^[2]. This means that while the constitutional right exists universally, its practical application differs between various categories of non-citizens.

The sources also highlight ongoing legal challenges that affect these rights. The Trump administration's policies have created tensions around immigrant rights implementation ^[4], and organizations like the ACLU are actively challenging policies that may undermine due process protections ^[4].

Additionally, there are risks associated with third-country removals and expulsions that can undermine due process safeguards and put individuals at risk of harm ^[3], suggesting that constitutional guarantees don't always translate to adequate practical protections.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. CASA has also limited the availability of universal injunctions ^[5], which could affect how broadly due process protections can be enforced through the judicial system.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward constitutional inquiry. However, the question's simplicity could lead to misunderstanding about the complexity of due process implementation.

The question doesn't acknowledge that while the constitutional right is clear and well-established, political and administrative actions can create barriers to accessing these rights in practice. Organizations advocating for immigrant rights, such as the ACLU and Vera Institute, benefit from emphasizing the importance of robust due process protections ^{[1] [4]}, while political administrations may benefit from limiting the practical scope of these protections while maintaining constitutional compliance.

The framing also doesn't capture the ongoing legal and political tensions around immigration enforcement, where the constitutional principle is settled but its application remains contentious in policy implementation.