Case Briefs

Case Briefs

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha

Name and Citation

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jagdish Rai Chadha, et al. 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

Key Facts

Jagdish Rai Chadha was born in Kenya to East Indian parents but both Kenya and India did not consider him as a legal citizen of their country instead he hold a British passport. United States legally admitted Chadha on non-immigrant student visa in 1966. On October 11, 1973, he was ordered, by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to show cause that why his deportation should not be done for staying in United States longer than he was permitted as his visa was expired on June 30, 1972.

The Issue

Whether authorizing one-house veto, by Congress, to overturn the attorney general's decision was constitutional as powers are given and kept separated to each house of the government under constitutional acts I, II and III?

Holding and Vote

Affirmed. Chadha Won 7 votes while 2 votes went against him. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Burger.

Reasoning

The appeal, after being dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, went to The United States Court of Appeals, for the Ninth circuit, where it was held that the House had no official authority to deport Chadha and that the constitutional principle of separation of powers (634 F2nd 408) was violated by 244(c)(2). It was affirmed, on appeal, by the United States Supreme Court. The opinion was given by Chief Justice Burger, along with Justice Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and O'Conor that it was unconstitutional to provide legislative veto in 244(c)(2) because veto from one-house is governmental for purpose and effect and depends upon the methods defined in Article I of the US constitution that requires to be allowed by most of the members of both houses and also presented to the President. Justice Powell, in agreement reasoned that the case should be viewed in narrower context and affirmed that upon finding out person's non-satisfactory fulfillment of legal criteria regarding permanent residency, congress implicit a judicial process hence violating the doctrine of separation of powers.

Separate Onions

Justice White dissented the decision and suggested that, “the Attorney General's action under 244(c)(1) suspending deportation is equivalent to a proposal for legislation and that because congressional approval is indicated by the failure to veto, the one-House veto satisfies the requirement of bicameral approval.” This dissented view was joined by Justice Rehnquist and he suggested that 244(c)(2) cannot be severable from respite of the law.

Discussion

The US constitution does not specifically ban discrimination on gender basis. It is read carefully there are no specific bans on discrimination regarding race, color and beliefs. It has only given the provisions that are interpreted in different ways.

The ruling raise the concerned that whether termination of legislative veto effects the working of government or not? On the one hand, it can be said that the government is able to work more responsibly and effectively after the demise of legislative veto. The legislative veto many ...