Jean v. Nelson - 472 U.S. 846, 105 S. Ct. 2992 (1985)

Rule:

Prior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision. This is a fundamental rule of judicial restraint. Of course, the fact that courts should not decide constitutional issues unnecessarily does not permit a court to press statutory construction to the point of disingenuous evasion to avoid a constitutional question. If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that courts ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality unless such adjudication is unavoidable.

Facts:

Petitioner named representatives of a class of undocumented and unadmitted aliens from Haiti filed suit in Federal District Court alleging that the change by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from a policy of general parole for undocumented aliens seeking admission to a policy, based on no statute or regulation, of detention without parole for aliens who could not present a prima facie case for admission was unlawful because it did not comply with the notice-and-comment rule making procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It was further alleged that the restrictive parole policy, as executed by INS officers in the field, violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment because it discriminated against petitioners on the basis of race and national origin. The District Court held for petitioners on the APA claim, but concluded that they had failed to prove discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. The court then enjoined future use of the restrictive parole policy but stayed the injunction to permit the INS to promulgate a new parole policy in compliance with the APA. The INS promptly promulgated a new rule that prohibits the consideration of race or national origin. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that the APA claim was moot because the Government was no longer detaining any class members under the invalidated policy, and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the consideration of unadmitted aliens for parole. The court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit review of the INS officials' discretion under the new nondiscriminatory rule.

Issue:

Did the Court of Appeals properly reach the constitutional issue in deciding cases challenging INS' denial of parole to undocumented Haitian aliens?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the appeals court should not have resolved the issue on constitutional grounds when the question could have been addressed solely by examining whether facially-neutral INS regulations were violated by the INS officials making parole decisions. Constitutional questions were to be avoided when a nonconstitutional basis for the decision was available, the court cautioned. The court noted that current statutes and regulations provided petitioners with nondiscriminatory parole considerations, and listed neutral criteria bearing on the grant or denial of parole. Whether the INS officials properly exercised their discretion under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(d)(5)(A) in making individualized determinations of parole without regard to race was a question for the trial court on remand. If there were facially legitimate and bona fide reasons for denying parole to unadmitted aliens, they would be upheld.