Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
509 U.S. 43 (1993)


Facts

In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Act), which created an amnesty program that permitted unlawfully present foreign nationals to legalize their immigration status if they applied before a statutory deadline. The Act included exclusive-review provisions that barred judicial review of agency denials of amnesty applications. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (defendant) implemented regulations interpreting certain statutory requirements in ways that restricted the number of applicants who could qualify for the amnesty program. The INS also prepared a legalization manual for its employees to use in reviewing amnesty applications. The manual instructed INS employees to conduct a pre-filing review with applicants and to reject applications that did not satisfy the statutory requirements. This type of rejection was called front desking. Catholic Social Services, Inc. and others (plaintiffs) filed two class-action suits against the INS and various government officials (defendants), challenging the validity of the new regulations. The evidence reflected that some amnesty applications had been front desked as a result of applying the new regulations. The district courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The two class-action suits were consolidated on appeal, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of jurisdiction.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (O’Connor, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.