From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
United States Supreme Court
462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764 (1983)
Congress passed § 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizing one house of Congress, by resolution, to invalidate an executive determination that allowed a deportable person to remain in the United States. Jagdish Rai Chadha (plaintiff), a Kenyan citizen, lawfully came to the United States on a student visa, but he remained after the visa expired. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (defendant) ordered Chadha to show cause why he should not be deported. Chadha applied for a suspension of deportation. After a deportation hearing, an immigration judge suspended Chadha's deportation under § 244(a)(1) of the INA, which allows the Attorney General to exercise his discretion to suspend a deportation. The suspension was reported to Congress pursuant to § 244(a)(1). However, after considering 340 cases, the House of Representatives passed a resolution vetoing Chadha's suspension and the suspension of five other individuals pursuant to § 244(c)(2). The immigration judge reopened the deportation proceeding and eventually ordered that Chadha be deported. Although Chadha argued that § 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional, the immigration judge concluded that he did not have the power to rule on the statute's constitutionality. Chadha appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his action and also held that it had no power to rule that the statute was unconstitutional. Chadha then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the deportation order. In the Ninth Circuit, the INS agreed with Chadha that § 244(c)(2) was unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit directed both the United States House of Representatives and Senate to submit amicus curiae briefs on the issue. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled in Chadha's favor and held that Congress could not overturn the decision of the Attorney General, and the court ordered the Attorney General to stop the deportation process. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 631,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 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.