Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is a notable Supreme Court case that centers around issues of immigration, deportation, and constitutional rights. The case emerged in the context of the U.S. government's classification of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) as a terrorist organization, leading to the deportation orders for eight resident aliens associated with it. These individuals contested their deportation, claiming it was motivated by their political beliefs, thus infringing upon their First Amendment rights.
The situation became more complex with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, which curtailed judicial review of certain deportation proceedings. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the government, stating that individuals unlawfully in the U.S. do not have the constitutional right to claim selective enforcement against their deportation. This ruling prompted significant dissent, raising concerns about the implications of Congress's ability to limit judicial remedies for constitutional rights. The case remains a key reference point in discussions about immigration laws and civil liberties in the United States.
On this Page
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision on deportation procedures
Date: Decided on February 24, 1999
Significance:The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee decision upheld and broadly interpreted a federal statute that severely restricted the rights of alien residents to challenge deportation orders in court, even in cases when the defendants claim a violation of their constitutional rights.
The U.S. government characterized the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) as an international terrorist organization. In 1987, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordered the deportation of eight resident aliens who were members of the PFLP, even though none of the eight had been accused of committing a criminal act. In response, they filed suit, alleging that Attorney General Janet Reno and other federal officials had targeted them for deportation because of their political opinions and political affiliation—a violation of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. In 1996, while the case was still being adjudicated in the lower courts, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which eliminated judicial review of the Justice Department’s deportation proceedings against several classes of aliens.
Based on the new law, Reno filed a motion asserting that the federal courts no longer had jurisdiction to review the validity of the selective enforcement claim. Both the district court and the court of appeals rejected the motion. By an 8-1 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed these rulings and upheld Reno’s motion. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation.” In a strong dissent, Justice David Souter argued that a complete preclusion of judicial review would “raise the serious constitutional question of whether Congress may block every remedy for enforcing a constitutional right.” In subsequent cases, the application of the IIRIRA has continued to be controversial.
Bibliography
Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Miyamoto, Maryam K. “The First Amendment After Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: A Different Bill of Rights for Aliens?” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 35 (Winter, 2000): 183-224.