Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha
Headline: Congress’s one‑House veto on individual deportation cases is struck down, blocking a single chamber from overturning the Attorney General’s decision and limiting unilateral House deportation orders affecting immigrants.
Holding: The one‑House legislative veto in §244(c)(2) is unconstitutional because a single chamber cannot overturn the Attorney General’s suspension of deportation without bicameral passage and presentment.
- Blocks a single House from overturning the Attorney General’s decision to let an alien stay.
- Leaves suspension procedure intact but removes one‑House veto power.
- Shifts oversight to full Congress and courts rather than unilateral House action.
Summary
Background
Jagdish Chadha is an immigrant born in Kenya who held a British passport and stayed in the United States after his student visa expired. An Immigration Judge found he met the statutory criteria to have deportation suspended and reported that decision to Congress. The House of Representatives then passed a resolution disapproving that suspension and the Immigration Service reopened proceedings and ordered Chadha deported.
Reasoning
The central question was whether one House of Congress can, by resolution alone, overturn the Attorney General’s decision to suspend an individual’s deportation. The Court examined the Constitution’s rules for making laws — the requirement that laws be passed by both Houses and presented to the President — and concluded the one‑House veto was legislative in character and therefore must comply with those rules. The Court held the one‑House veto in the statute unconstitutional but severed that clause so the rest of the immigration suspension process remains in force. The Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment in Chadha’s favor.
Real world impact
The decision prevents a single chamber of Congress from unilaterally reversing executive decisions to let a deportable person remain. The Attorney General’s authority to suspend deportation stays intact, but Congress can no longer use a one‑house resolution to cancel those suspensions. The ruling affects how Congress supervises many delegated powers and preserves the requirement of bicameral passage and presidential presentment for actions that change legal status.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Powell concurred in the judgment on narrower separation‑of‑powers grounds. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, warning this holding may invalidate many existing congressional review provisions and reduce congressional control over agencies.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?