Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A field of federal law regulating the admission, residence, and removal of noncitizens, subject to Congress's plenary power.
Isabelle Inman, a lawful permanent resident for four years, applied for Medicare benefits after turning sixty-five. Federal regulations denied her coverage because she had not yet met the five-year residency threshold. The denial stood because Congress holds plenary power over immigration and may impose reasonable alienage classifications without triggering strict scrutiny.
Idina Iverson married Igor Ito solely to obtain a green card and signed a side agreement stating they would never live together or share finances. When immigration authorities investigated, the court examined whether the couple had intended to assume the usual obligations of marriage. The marriage was held invalid because the collateral agreement contradicted the requirements of a genuine marital relationship.
Ivy Ibarra, a national of a majority-Muslim country, was denied entry under an executive order citing national security risks to infrastructure projects. She challenged the order on Establishment Clause grounds, pointing to earlier presidential statements suggesting religious animus. The order was upheld because it recited a facially neutral security purpose rationally related to preventing sabotage.
Irene Ingalls, a noncitizen, was prosecuted under a state statute requiring all aliens to register with local police. Federal immigration statutes already regulated alien registration and imposed their own penalties. The state law was preempted because the national power over immigration is exclusive and state additions to federal alien regulations are invalid.
In 1939 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted an Alien Registration Act requiring every alien eighteen years of age or older, with limited exceptions, to register annually with the Department of Labor and Industry, supply specified information plus any additional details the department might direct, pay a one-dollar annual fee, receive an identification card, carry the card at all times, and exhibit it on demand by any police officer or department agent. One alien and one naturalized citizen filed suit in federal district court against state officials charged with enforcing the statute and sought an injunction against its operation. A three-judge district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the alien plaintiff and enjoined enforcement of the Act. The case reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under section 266 of the Judicial Code, with probable jurisdiction noted on March 25, 1940. After the district court decision but before Supreme Court review, Congress on June 28, 1940 enacted a federal Alien Registration Act that requires a single registration of aliens fourteen years of age and older, collects detailed information plus additional matters prescribed by the Commissioner with the Attorney General's approval, mandates fingerprinting of all registrants, and directs that registration records be kept secret and released only to persons or agencies designated by the Commissioner with the Attorney General's approval. The federal statute contains no requirement that aliens carry identification cards for exhibition to police or other officials and punishes only willful failure to register. The Supreme Court therefore examined the Pennsylvania statute in light of the intervening federal legislation.
View caseIsabella Ingram received a deportation order that Congress later attempted to override through a one-house veto provision in the immigration statute. She argued the veto violated separation of powers. The veto was struck down because it constituted an impermissible legislative action without bicameral passage and presentment.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseIgor Ito faced deportation proceedings in which the government sought to prove his deportability by a preponderance of the evidence. He argued that the standard violated due process because deportation carries severe consequences. The court required clear and convincing evidence, recognizing that the drastic nature of removal demands a higher burden than ordinary civil cases.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseFederal classifications based on alienage receive rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny because Congress possesses plenary power over immigration. A five-year residency requirement for Medicare benefits was upheld as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable even though it excluded many resident aliens.
Some courts treat a sham marriage as valid if the parties were competent and satisfied procedural requirements. Other courts invalidate the marriage unless the parties intended to assume the usual obligations and status of marriage rather than merely cohabiting.
Courts accord substantial deference to the political branches in immigration and foreign affairs and generally apply at most rational basis review. An order restricting entry from several majority-Muslim countries was upheld when it stated a proper national security purpose rationally related to that purpose.
…in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in the exercise of their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae 5–28. For much of the 20th…