Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Script error: No such module "AfC submission catcheck".
| Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 4, 1998 Decided February 24, 1999 | |
| Full case name | Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee |
| Citations | 525 U.S. 471/case.html U.S. 471 (more) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter |
| Laws applied | |
| McCarran-Walter Act, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act | |
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471 (1999), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 24, 1999. The case initially alleged that the Attorney General and other federal parties violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights by targeting them for their political affiliations.[1]
During the proceedings, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), restricting judicial review of the Attorney General's "decision or action" to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act". In return, Reno filed motions arguing against the act. The District Court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision on their merits.[1][2]
Background[edit]
In January 1987, eight alleged members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat, Julie Mungai, Amjad Obeid, Ayman Obeid, Naim Sharif, Khader Hamide, and Michel Shehadeh, were set to be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The organization PFLP, is characterized by the government as an international terrorist and communist organization.[2] The eight became referred to as the Los Angeles Eight.[3] All eight denied membership in PFLP.[4]
INS charged all eight under the McCarran-Walter Act, which provided for the deportation of aliens who "advocate … world communism."[5] The case against the Los Angeles Eight was centered in the fund-raising and related political activities. Their actions would have been constitutionally protected would they have been citizens. However, the INS sought to deport them under the terrorist activity provisions that were added to the Immigration Act of 1990 (INA).[3] In addition to this charge, six temporary residents were charged with routine status violations.These violations included overstaying visas and failure to maintain student status. The members challenged the constitutionality of the anticommunism provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.[5]
As a result, the INS responded by dropping the advocacy-of-communism charges but retained the technical violation charges against the six temporary residents. They then charged the two permanent residents under a different section the McCarran-Walter Act. This pertained the deportation of aliens who were members of an organization advocation "the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers" and "the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property."[2] INS changed the charges for tactical reasons, but the INS was still seeking their deportation because of their affiliation. As a result, the members amended their complaint to include an allegation that the INS was selectively enforcing immigration laws against them.[3] The members filed suit alleging the Attorney General and other federal parties had targeted them for deportation because of their affiliation with a politically unpopular group, which violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights.[1][2]
The District Court urged the deportation proceedings with the claims that they were likely to prove that the INS did not enforce routine status requirements against immigrants. However, it was during the case that Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). IIRIRA, inter alia, repealed the old judicial-review scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § n05a, and instituted a new provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(g).[5] The IIRIRIA restricted judicial review of the Attorney General's "decision or action" to "commence proceeding, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act."[2] Reno then filed motions arguing that the IIRIRA deprived the courts of jurisdiction over the aliens’ selective-enforcement claim.[3]
Question[edit]
Reno v American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee largely challenged the issue of if IIRIRA deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over aliens’ suits alleging that actions of the Attorney General are selectively enforced.[1]
With the passage of IIRIRA, could the district court entertain plaintiffs’ challenge to the deportation proceeding prior to entry of a final order of deportation?[6]
Decision[edit]
Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the 8-1 decision in the case of Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.[6]
Scalia wrote, "[a]s a general matter – and assuredly in the context of claims such as those put forward in the present case – an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation".[1]
The case had concurring opinions from Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens. They concurred that the federal courts did not have the jurisdiction over the respondent's suit. As a result, the general rule that revised procedures for removing aliens do not apply to noncitizen aliens was upheld. The sole dissenting opinion was written by Justice Souter.[7]
Legacy[edit]
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee significantly limited momentum put forward by cases such as Rafeedie v. INS. These cases showed that federal courts have recognized that the government's procedures undermine the functioning of the adversarial system. The interpretation of provisions in the IIRIRA drastically limited judicial review for cases to follow. This has become a larger problem in cases where the INS continue to use secret evidence in their deportation cases, to which they cannot dispute.[4]
References[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 "Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee". Oyez. September 26, 2023. Retrieved September 26, 2023.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 "Reno v. AADC, 525 U.S. 471 (1999)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-09-27. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Johnson, Kevin (2008-11-20). The Huddled Masses Myth: Immigration And Civil Rights. Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-792-3. Search this book on
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 McBride, David (2022-07-30). Bioterrorism: The History of a Crisis in American Society: 2 Volume Set. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-80676-2. Search this book on
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Scalia (February 24, 1999), Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discriminationcomm. (Opinion of the Court), 525, p. 471, retrieved 2023-09-27
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 "RENO v. ADC". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2023-09-27.
- ↑ LeMay, Michael C. (2021-04-21). Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in America: A Reference Handbook. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4408-6730-9. Search this book on
This article "Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
