The Legal Battle: Ins V Chadha And Sec 115

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (INS v. Chadha) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. The case centred around Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized either House of Congress to override the decision of the Executive Branch to allow a deportable alien to remain in the United States. The House of Representatives used this power to veto the Attorney General's decision to allow Jagdish Rai Chadha, a non-immigrant student from Kenya, to remain in the country, and Chadha was deported. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-house veto was unconstitutional because it violated the explicit constitutional standards of lawmaking and congressional authority, bypassing the ordinary legislative process involving both the House and the Senate, as well as the President. The Court's decision had significant implications for the legislative veto mechanism, which had become a central means for Congress to hold executive and independent agencies accountable.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$229.41 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

The constitutionality of § 244(c)(2)

An immigration judge initially ruled that Chadha's deportation be suspended on the grounds that he would suffer "extreme hardship" if deported. However, under § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), either House of Congress had the power to veto the Attorney General's determination to suspend deportation. The House of Representatives vetoed the Attorney General's decision, and Chadha was ordered to be deported.

Chadha then initiated legal proceedings, arguing that the legislative veto used by the House was unconstitutional. He contended that it bypassed the ordinary legislative process, which requires the involvement of both the House and the Senate, along with the President, to pass a law. Chadha had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2) as he demonstrated "injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury."

The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that the one-house legislative veto in § 244(c)(2) violated the constitutional separation of powers. The Court held that when the House takes actions that alter the legal rights, duties, or relations of persons outside of the legislative branch, it must comply with the requirements of bicameralism and presentment under Article I of the Constitution. The Court's decision invalidated not only § 244(c)(2) but also called into question the constitutionality of numerous other statutory provisions with similar legislative veto mechanisms.

The legislative veto's constitutional problem

The legislative veto in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was ruled unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha because it violated the separation of powers. The case centred on the deportation of Jagdish Rai Chadha, a non-immigrant student visa holder who had overstayed his visa. The Attorney General recommended that Chadha's deportation be suspended, but the House of Representatives vetoed this decision.

The legislative veto was found to be unconstitutional because it gave Congress the power to alter the legal rights of persons outside the legislative branch without the involvement of the Senate or the President, bypassing the ordinary legislative process. This was seen as a violation of the bicameralism and presentment requirements in Article I of the Constitution, which are intended to preserve the separation of powers and checks and balances in the constitutional design.

The legislative veto was also criticised for giving Congress unchecked power to act arbitrarily and expand its own power into the areas of competence of the other branches, violating the anti-aggrandizement principle. Justice Powell, in a concurring opinion, emphasised the seriousness of invalidating the legislative veto, as Congress viewed it as essential for controlling the executive branch.

The ruling in INS v. Chadha had significant implications, calling into question the constitutionality of numerous other statutory provisions that included a legislative veto. While the legislative veto was found to be severable from the rest of the INA, the Court's decision highlighted the tension between Congress's delegation of powers to administrative agencies and the Constitution's mandate that legislative power resides with Congress.

Separation of powers

The case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (INS v. Chadha) in 1983 centred on the constitutionality of a one-house legislative veto under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act allowed either House of Congress to invalidate the decision of the Executive Branch to allow a deportable alien to remain in the US. This was the case for Jagdish Rai Chadha, who had overstayed his student visa. The Attorney General had recommended that Chadha's deportation be suspended on the grounds that he would suffer "extreme hardship" if deported. However, the House of Representatives vetoed this decision, and Chadha was deported.

The Supreme Court ruled that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. The House's action was deemed to have the purpose and effect of altering the legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside of the legislative branch. The Court held that in such cases, bicameralism and presentment are required. In other words, measures in the context of deportation must be passed by a majority of both Houses and must be submitted to the President to be signed or vetoed. These requirements preserve the checks and balances in the constitutional design and maintain the separation of powers.

The Court's decision invalidated not only the one-house veto in Chadha's case but also similar legislative veto provisions in nearly 200 other statutory provisions. This decision was based on the principle that Congress may not expand its power into areas of competence of other branches, known as the anti-aggrandizement principle. The Court found that the House's action was not legislative in character but adjudicative, infringing on the judicial role.

It is important to note that the Court's ruling did not affect the validity of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a whole. Section 406 of the Act provides that if any provision is held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall remain operative. This presumption of severability is supported by the legislative history of the Act, and the Court found that the Act could survive as a "fully operative" administrative mechanism without the one-house veto.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$297.73

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

The House's unchecked power

In INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court ruled that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. The case centred on Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized either House of Congress to invalidate the Executive Branch's decision to allow a deportable alien to remain in the United States.

The Houses' unchecked power refers to the ability of either House of Congress to unilaterally veto the Attorney General's determination to allow an individual to remain in the country, bypassing the ordinary legislative process involving both the House and the Senate, along with the President. This unilateral power granted to each House of Congress raised concerns about the potential for arbitrary decision-making and the infringement on the judicial role, as highlighted by Justice Lewis Powell's concurring opinion.

In the case of Jagdish Rai Chadha, an alien who had overstayed his student visa, the House of Representatives vetoed the Attorney General's decision to suspend Chadha's deportation. Chadha challenged the constitutionality of the one-house veto, arguing that it bypassed the standard legislative process and altered his legal rights without the involvement of both chambers of Congress and the President.

The Supreme Court agreed with Chadha's argument, finding that the one-house veto violated the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment. The Court held that when either House of Congress takes actions that alter the legal rights, duties, or relations of persons outside the legislative branch, both chambers must be involved, and the decision must be presented to the President.

The unchecked power of the Houses to unilaterally veto the Executive Branch's decisions was deemed unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers and the anti-aggrandizement principle. This principle prohibits Congress from expanding its power into areas designated for other branches of government. By vesting the power to veto deportation decisions in a single House, Congress effectively conducted a legislative trial, overstepping its legislative character and infringing on the judicial domain.

The deportation of Chadha

Jagdish Rai Chadha, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, entered the United States on a British passport as a foreign exchange student in Ohio. After Kenya's independence from Britain in 1963, Chadha was no longer recognized as a legitimate citizen or resident of Kenya or India, and his right of abode in the United Kingdom was stripped under the Immigration Act 1971. Chadha's non-immigrant student visa expired in 1972, and he was ordered to show cause by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as to why he should not be deported, as none of the three countries would accept him onto their territory, rendering him de facto stateless.

Chadha sought to suspend his deportation, and the INS accommodated his request according to § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, transmitting a report of the suspension to Congress under § 244(c)(2). Section 244(c)(2) authorizes either House of Congress to invalidate the decision of the Executive Branch, pursuant to authority delegated by Congress to the Attorney General, to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States. Chadha's deportation order was based on the validity of the challenged veto, and the final order was entered against him to implement the action of the House of Representatives.

The case, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), is a pivotal case construing the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court held that the one-house legislative veto was unconstitutional as it met neither the bicameralism nor the presentment requirement. The bicameralism requirement states that legislation must pass both houses of Congress, and the presentment requirement states that legislation must be presented to the President for signature or veto before becoming law.

Chadha had standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 244(c)(2) since he demonstrated "injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury." The legislative veto provision was also found to be severable from the rest of the Act, meaning that the remainder of the Act would not be affected if the veto provision was held invalid.

Chadha became a U.S. citizen in April 1984 and was living in Albany, California, as of 1985.

Frequently asked questions