Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Summary

The Supreme Court considered whether the one-House legislative veto authorized by § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was constitutional. The Court addressed jurisdiction, standing, severability, case-or-controversy requirements, and political-question arguments before reviewing the separation-of-powers challenge. The excerpt states that the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's judgment.

Holdings

1. The INS was an aggrieved party entitled to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252 even though it agreed with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that § 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional, because the judgment prohibited the agency from taking action it otherwise would have taken.
2. The one-House veto provision in § 244(c)(2) is severable from the remainder of the Immigration and Nationality Act and from the remainder of § 244.
3. Chadha had standing, and the dispute presented a genuine Article III case or controversy, notwithstanding the INS's agreement with Chadha's constitutional position.
4. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under § 106(a) to review Chadha's constitutional challenge because the validity of the House veto was contingent to the final deportation order itself.
5. The constitutional challenge was justiciable and did not present a nonjusticiable political question.
6. Section 244(c)(2)'s authorization for either House of Congress, acting alone, to veto the Attorney General's suspension of an alien's deportation is unconstitutional because it is an exercise of legislative power that does not comply with Article I's bicameralism and presentment requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over the INS appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252.
2. Whether Chadha had standing and whether the case presented a genuine case or controversy despite agreement between Chadha and the INS.
3. Whether the one-House veto provision was severable from the Immigration and Nationality Act.
4. Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to review Chadha's constitutional challenge to the deportation order.
5. Whether the constitutional challenge presented a nonjusticiable political question.
6. Whether § 244(c)(2), authorizing one House of Congress to veto the Attorney General's suspension of an alien's deportation, violated the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I and the separation of powers.

Disposition

affirmed