Supreme Court of the United States
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
February 24, 1999525 U.S. 471
Summary
Justice Scalia's majority opinion held that § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction over respondents' collateral selective-enforcement challenge to the commencement of deportation proceedings. The provision applies to pending proceedings but reaches only the three specified actions of commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, and executing removal orders; § 1252(f) does not independently confer jurisdiction. The majority also rejected constitutional avoidance because unlawfully present aliens generally cannot resist deportation through selective-enforcement claims, while reserving the possibility of exceptionally outrageous discrimination. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded with instructions to vacate the District Court's judgment. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer as to Part I of her concurrence, agreed that immediate review was unavailable but would leave open selective-enforcement objections on review of a final removal order; both joined Parts I and II of the Court's opinion. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, construing the statute to prohibit collateral attacks immediately while preserving the former review scheme for pending proceedings. Justice Souter dissented without a joiner, finding contradictory transition provisions and favoring the construction preserving district-court review; he also criticized reaching the insufficiently briefed selective-enforcement issue.
Holding
- Scope and application of § 1252(g) to pending proceedings.. Section 1252(g) applies to past, pending, and future proceedings, but only to claims arising from the Attorney General's decisions or actions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders, not every action associated with deportation.
- Whether § 1252(f) supplies jurisdiction.. Section 1252(f) limits injunctive relief and does not affirmatively grant jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction over respondents' selective-enforcement suit.. The federal courts lack jurisdiction over respondents' collateral challenge to the Attorney General's decision to commence deportation proceedings.
- Whether constitutional avoidance requires immediate review.. Constitutional doubt does not require immediate review: an alien unlawfully present generally has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense to deportation, and selecting deportable aliens because of believed membership in an organization supporting terrorist activity does not violate the Constitution. The Court reserved the possibility of a rare case involving outrageous discrimination.
Docket 97-1252
Cited authorities
- 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251
- 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251
- 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251
- 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252
- CA11
- 28 U. S. C. 2347(b)(3)
- 110 Stat. 3009
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252