Ins v. Chadha

462 U.S. 919, 103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983)



The term "final orders" in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1105a(a) includes all matters on which the validity of the final order is contingent, rather than only those determinations actually made at the hearing.


An immigration judge suspended respondent alien's deportation pursuant to 244(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"). The House of Representatives passed a resolution vetoing the suspension pursuant to 244(c)(2) of the Act, which authorizes one House of Congress to invalidate the decision of the executive branch to allow a particular deportable alien to remain in the United States. The immigration judge reopened the deportation proceedings to implement the House order, and the alien was ordered deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the alien's appeal, holding that it had no power to declare unconstitutional an act of Congress. Respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held that the House was without constitutional authority to order the alien's deportation and that 244(c)(2) violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed.


Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the House's order of deportation?




The deportation stands or falls on the validity of the challenged veto; the final order of deportation was entered  only to implement the action of the House of Representatives. Although the Attorney General was satisfied that the House action was invalid and that it should not have any effect on his decision to suspend deportation, he appropriately let the controversy take its course through the courts. the alien directly attacks the deportation order itself, and the relief he seeks -- cancellation of deportation -- is plainly inconsistent with the deportation order. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to decide these cases.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.