From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha Laws applied U.S. Constitution
Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 22, 1982 Reargued December 7, 1982 Decided June 23, 1983 Full case name Citations Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha, et al. 462 U.S. 919 (more) 103 S. Ct. 2764; 77 L. Ed. 2d 317; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 80; 51 U.S.L.W. 4907; 13 ELR 20663 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case ruling that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Parties Background
State of law
§ 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1), authorized the INS to suspend deportation of aliens continually resident in the United States for at least seven years where the Attorney General, in his discretion, found that "deportation would . . . result in extreme hardship." After such a finding by the Attorney General, a report would be transmitted to Congress pursuant to § 244(c)(1), and either house of Congress had the power to veto the Attorney General’s determination pursuant to § 244(c)(2).
Prior history
Holding Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch consistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Court membership Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O’Connor Case opinions Majority Burger, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor Powell White Rehnquist, joined by White
Facts of case
Respondent Jagdish Rai Chadha was born in Kenya to Indian parents, but neither Kenya nor India recognized him as a legitimate citizen or resident; instead, he held a British passport. He traveled to Ohio as a foreign exchange student; after his nonimmigrant student visa expired, neither Kenya nor India would accept him onto its territory.
Background
The INS initiated deportation proceedings against Chadha. Chadha sought to suspend his deportation, and the INS accommodated his request pursuant to § 244(a)(1), and transmitted a report of the suspension to Congress pursuant to § 244(c)(2). The House of Representatives vetoed the suspension of
Concurrence Dissent Dissent
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chadha’s deportation, and the INS subsequently resumed deportation proceedings. The immigration judge declined to exercise jurisdiction over the constitutional objections of Chadha, and ordered him deported. Chadha then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his constitutional objections. Chadha and the INS, which now supported his challenge to the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2), then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which rendered judgment in his favor and ordered the suspension of deportation proceedings.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
individuals, would likely not have been willing to retain the private law mechanism rather than ceding all power to the Attorney General. (2) The Attorney General and INS did not waive their right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute by enforcing the statute. (3) The action is a genuine case with adequate representation in favor of sustaining the act provided by the houses of Congress as amici curiae. (4) The case is a judicable question, not exempted by the political question doctrine; the constitutionality of a statute is a question for the courts. The Court then presented its affirmative reasoning: (5) When the Constitution provides express procedures, such procedures must be strictly observed. Two such provisions are bicameralism and presentment in the enactment of law. (6) The presentment process—especially the President’s veto power—was intended by the Framers to provide a mechanism by which the executive branch could defend itself against legislative encroachment and could prevent ill-conceived policies. (7) Similarly, the bicameralism requirement was formulated in order to hinder congressional action and thereby prevent legislative encroachment. (8) The action of the House of Representatives is legislative in nature because (a) it modifies rights and duties of individuals outside the legislative branch; (b) the enactment would otherwise have required a private law, which is a legislative function; and (c) the nature of the action is inherently legislative. (9) When the Framers intended to authorize Congress to exercise power outside of the bicameral and presentment principles, it provided alternate procedures explicitly; other procedures cannot be admitted. (10) Because the action of the House of Representatives was legislative, but did not conform to the mode of action specifically stated by the Constitution for legislative action, it is therefore invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.
Procedural posture
Congress sought reversal of Court of Appeals judgment in the United States Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General’s determination is constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.
Arguments/theories Rule of law
Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General’s determination is constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.
Reasoning
The Court rebutted Congress’s assertions as follows: (1) § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is severable from the rest of the act pursuant to the express severability clause § 406. The legislative history of § 244 supports the proposition that Congress, frustrated with the process of passing private laws to provide relief for deportable
Notable concurring and dissenting opinions
Result
Judgment/disposition
Court of Appeals judgment affirmed.
2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
• Seth Barrett Tillman, "A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3" 83 Tex. L. Rev. 1265 (2005) [2] • Gary S. Lawson, "Comment, Burning Down the House (and Senate)", 83 Tex. L. Rev. 1373 (2005) • Seth Barrett Tillman, "Reply, The Domain of Constitutional Delegations under the Orders, Resolutions and Votes Clause", 83 Tex. L. Rev. 1389 (2005)[3] [1] 462 U.S. 919 (Complete ruling from Findlaw.com) [2] Brest, Paul; Sanford Levinson, Jack M. Balkin, Akhil Reed Amar, and Reva B. Seigel (2006). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials (6th Edition ed.). Aspen. pp. 813–815.
Subsequent history
Jagdish Chadha is currently a citizen of the United States, living near San Francisco, CA, as of June 1985.[1]
Legacy and other notes
Legislative vetoes did not generally disappear after Chadha, but continued to be enacted, although the various presidents have issued executive signing statements disclaiming the unconstitutional legislative veto provisions. The War Powers Act, for example, while contested by every president since Richard M. Nixon, is grudgingly obeyed. Other processes, such as fast-track legislation, have taken the place of the legislative veto and achieved the same effects.[2]
See also
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 462
External links
• INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (opinion full text).
References
• Works related to INS v. Chadha at Wikisource
Retrieved from tion_and_Naturalization_Service_v._Chadha"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigra-
Categories: 1983 in law, United States Supreme Court cases, United States separation of powers case law, United States administrative case law, United States immigration and naturalization case law, Veto This page was last modified on 26 April 2009, at 19:44 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
3