It was a scene emblematic of today’s Washington—part courtroom drama, part political theater, all broadcast live to a nation hungry for answers and exhausted by division. The House Judiciary Committee hearing room was packed, the air thick with anticipation and the scent of old wood and fresh coffee. Cameras panned across a dais lined with lawmakers, each preparing for their moment in the spotlight. In the center, the issue at hand was deceptively simple: Who is entitled to due process under the Constitution?

But as the morning unfolded, the conversation became anything but simple. At the heart of the debate stood Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas, a former civil rights attorney with a reputation for precision and poise. Across from her, opponents—some steeped in legal scholarship, others in partisan fervor—challenged her assertions about constitutional protections for immigrants. The exchange would quickly escalate from technical legal argument to a fundamental reckoning with the meaning of American justice.

The Constitutional Question: Who Gets Due Process?

The catalyst for the confrontation was Crockett’s claim that due process, as enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, applies to “any person” on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. “If you are on our soil, you are guaranteed due process,” she stated, her voice measured but unwavering. “The fact that there’s even a question is why we are struggling right now.”

Her opponents pushed back, arguing that the Supreme Court has long recognized distinctions between the rights of citizens and non-citizens, especially in the context of immigration and deportation. “Due process is a context-dependent inquiry,” one committee member asserted. “Someone here illegally, facing deportation, does not receive the full measure of due process that an American citizen does.”

The debate was not merely academic. It cut to the core of how the United States treats the millions of people—documented and undocumented—who live, work, and raise families within its borders. The stakes were heightened by recent executive actions, including efforts to curtail birthright citizenship and expedite removals, and by the persistent backlog in immigration courts, where cases can languish for years.

Legal Standards: Criminal vs. Civil Protections

As the hearing progressed, the conversation turned to the mechanics of American justice. Crockett, drawing on her years in the courtroom, explained the difference between criminal and civil standards of proof. “You have a higher standard in a criminal case versus a civil case,” she said. “Preponderance is the burden in civil cases; beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.”

She clarified that while the nature and extent of due process protections may vary—more robust in criminal proceedings, more limited in civil or administrative contexts—the fundamental principle remains: No person within the United States can be deprived of liberty without some form of process.

Her argument found support in the text of the Fifth Amendment, which states, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Not “no citizen,” Crockett emphasized—no person. The distinction is crucial, and it has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, most notably in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), which held that constitutional protections apply to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction.

Political Motivations: Truth, Lies, and the Crisis of Trust

The hearing was as much about politics as it was about law. Crockett, facing a barrage of interruptions and accusations, lamented the rise of misinformation. “I can’t tell you how many lies are made up by MAGA followers about me,” she said. “That is the problem we’re having right now in this country—it seems like nobody cares about the truth anymore.”

Her opponents accused her side of hypocrisy, pointing to Democratic opposition to increased funding for immigration courts. “It’s highly problematic to hear arguments about due process from the side voting against resources needed for due process,” one Republican retorted.

Yet beneath the partisan sniping lay a deeper crisis—a loss of faith in the basic rules of debate and evidence. Crockett’s insistence on constitutional principles was not just a legal argument, but a plea for a return to first principles: “We don’t get to just change the Constitution because our fearless leader doesn’t like certain parts.”

The Broader Significance: Race, Rights, and American Identity

The question of due process for immigrants is inseparable from broader debates about race, citizenship, and belonging. Crockett alluded to the history of constitutional amendments—those guaranteeing women’s suffrage, birthright citizenship, and equal protection—and the persistent efforts to undermine them.

The Save Act, she noted, was emblematic of attempts to roll back hard-won rights, often under the guise of protecting national security or electoral integrity. “There are people that don’t like the fact that there was an amendment so that women could vote,” she said. “And guess what? We ended up with something like the Save Act because we don’t want women to vote.”

Her words resonated in a room where the Constitution itself was entered into the record, a symbolic gesture underscoring the gravity of the debate. “No person,” she reminded her colleagues, “shall be deprived of due process.”

The Supreme Court’s Stance: Context, Consistency, and Controversy

The Supreme Court has indeed recognized that due process is “context-dependent,” particularly in the realm of immigration. In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), the Court established a balancing test for procedural protections, weighing the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interest.

Yet the Court has also been consistent in affirming that non-citizens are entitled to some measure of due process before being removed from the country. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Court held that indefinite detention of non-citizens violated due process. More recently, lower courts have halted deportation flights, citing failures to provide adequate hearings.

As one ranking member summarized, “The Supreme Court has said on a 90 basis that there must be due process before people are removed from the United States.”

The Immigration Backlog: A System Under Strain

The hearing also highlighted the practical challenges facing the immigration system. With more than two million cases pending in immigration courts and wait times stretching into years, the promise of due process often feels hollow. Efforts to increase the number of judges, lawyers, and courtrooms have met resistance on both sides of the aisle, each accusing the other of undermining fairness.

For those caught in the system, the stakes are life-altering. Families are separated, livelihoods disrupted, and futures put on hold—all while the legal machinery grinds slowly, sometimes capriciously.

Cultural Impact: The Struggle for Truth and Dignity

Beyond the hearing room, the debate over due process for immigrants echoes in classrooms, workplaces, and communities. It is a test of the nation’s commitment to fairness, a measure of its willingness to extend dignity to all, regardless of status.

Crockett’s calm, methodical approach stood in stark contrast to the bluster and bravado that too often dominate political discourse. Her insistence on facts, her invocation of constitutional principles, and her refusal to be silenced became a template for confronting power—not just in Congress, but wherever rights are at stake.

Potential Outcomes: Reform, Resistance, and the Road Ahead

The outcome of the debate remains uncertain. Legislative efforts to streamline immigration courts, clarify due process protections, and address the backlog are ongoing, often mired in partisan gridlock. Executive actions continue to test the boundaries of constitutional authority, with courts serving as the final arbiters.

But the hearing made one thing clear: The struggle for due process is far from over. It will require vigilance, advocacy, and a renewed commitment to the principles that define American democracy.

Conclusion: Due Process as the Measure of a Nation

As the hearing adjourned and lawmakers moved on to the next item on the agenda, the echoes of the debate lingered. The Constitution—its promises, its ambiguities, its enduring relevance—remained at the center of the conversation.

In an era of polarization and mistrust, the question of who is entitled to due process is more than a legal technicality. It is a reflection of the nation’s soul, a test of its character, and a challenge to its conscience.

Congresswoman Crockett’s words serve as a reminder: “No person shall be deprived of due process.” The measure of a nation is not how it treats its most privileged, but how it protects the rights of all—citizen and non-citizen alike. The debate will continue, but the principle endures. And in the end, it is the Constitution—not the loudest voice in the room—that must have the final say.