Immigration Act Case
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court
106 BVerfGE 310 (2002)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In 2002, the Bundestag passed an immigration bill proposed by the government headed by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The governing coalition in the Bundestag of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Green Party supported the immigration bill. However, recent elections granted control of the Bundesrat to the Union parties, a coalition between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU). The Schroeder government attempted to secure passage of the legislation through the Bundesrat through the votes from the delegation from the state of Brandenburg. The Brandenburg delegation was a coalition of the SDP and the CDU. When the head of the delegation, a member of the SDP, attempted to cast all of the delegation’s votes for the immigration bill, a minister from the CDU shouted out a “no” vote. The Bundesrat determined the entirety of Brandenburg’s vote was in favor of the immigration, despite the vocal “no” vote from the CDU member of Brandenburg’s delegation. The federal president then enacted the immigration bill. Six of the state governments (plaintiffs) that either voted against the immigration bill or abstained from the vote challenged the newly enacted immigration law in the Federal Constitutional Court in an abstract-review proceeding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.