Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

1999-02-24

Headline: Law limiting pre-final deportation lawsuits upheld, blocking immediate federal review and forcing immigration challenges to wait until final removal orders, restricting relief for immigrants alleging selective enforcement.

Holding: In one sentence: The Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1252(g) bars federal courts from hearing pre-final-order challenges to the Attorney General’s decision to start deportation proceedings, so immediate injunctive relief is unavailable.

Real World Impact:

Blocks pre-final deportation lawsuits alleging selective enforcement.
Requires immigration claims to await final removal orders for appellate review.
Makes immediate injunctions stopping deportation proceedings harder to obtain.

Topics: immigration enforcement, judicial review, deportation, selective enforcement, First Amendment

Summary

Background

Eight people who belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were placed in deportation proceedings beginning in 1987. They sued in federal court, saying the Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted them because of their political association and that the proceedings chilled their speech. The district court entered injunctions for some respondents, and the case reached the Ninth Circuit. While the litigation was pending, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which changed when and where courts may review immigration decisions.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a new statutory provision, 8 U.S.C. §1252(g), removes federal-court jurisdiction over suits that challenge the Attorney General’s decision to start deportation proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders before a final removal order. The majority read §1252(g) narrowly to cover those three discrete actions and held that respondents’ pre-final-order suit was covered and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court said other review remains available after a final order in the court of appeals and stressed prosecutorial-discretion and separation-of-powers concerns. It also rejected broad constitutional-doubt arguments for immediate intervention in this record.

Real world impact

The ruling limits immigrants’ ability to obtain immediate federal-court injunctions stopping deportation-related actions before a final order. People alleging selective enforcement will generally need to await the final removal order and then seek appellate review. The Court acknowledged that very rare, extraordinary circumstances might permit pre-final relief, but found none here.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg concurred in the judgment but would leave the merits open and said the First Amendment did not require immediate relief; Justice Stevens also concurred in the judgment but viewed the statutory text as a drafting error; Justice Souter dissented, arguing the transitional statutes should preserve pre-existing judicial review for those already in proceedings.