“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Stephanos Bibas, nominated by Donald Trump to the Third Circuit court of appeals, was the deciding vote in a 2-1 ruling that denied asylum to a Sri Lankan immigrant who was beaten and interrogated by police in his home country. Judge Jane Roth, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, strongly dissented from the April 2025 ruling in Thankarasa v Attorney General.
What happened in this case?
Jathursan Thankarasa, a native of Sri Lanka, participated in a demonstration in support of the rights of the nation’s ethnic Tamils. The police arrested, detained, beat and interrogated him and burnt his stomach, seeking to find out about about future demonstration plans. Government supporters then threatened to kill him, assaulted his family, and tried to abduct him from home.
Thankarasa fled to the United States, where an Immigration Judge (IJ) found he would be persecuted if returned to Sri Lanka. The IJ and other immigration officials nevertheless denied his application for asylum. He took his case to the Third Circuit court of appeals.
How did Bibas and the Third Circuit majority rule and why is the decision harmful?
Bibas joined a 2-1 decision that agreed with immigration authorities and denied Thankasara’s request for asylum in the US. The majority maintained that the immigration officials did nothing “arbitrary or capricious” did not “abuse” their “discretion,” and reached their decision “in the manner prescribed” by statute and “our case law.”
Conservative Bush nominee Jane Roth strongly dissented. She explained that the majority decision “misapplies our precedent, overlooks significant procedural errors,” and “places us in conflict with the broad consensus of our sister circuits.” In addition to the obvious harm to the efforts of Jathursan Thankarasa to obtain justice, Judge Roth concluded more broadly that the “effects of today’s decision on our immigration system” at least in the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, are “as certain as they are troubling.” The case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.