American Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Reno
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15163, 1998 WL 554226, 18 F.Supp.2d 38 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Aliens seeking initial admission to the United States do not possess constitutional due process rights regarding their application for admission, and whatever procedures Congress authorizes for their removal are constitutionally sufficient. Furthermore, third-party organizations do not have a First Amendment right of access to these aliens during the expedited removal process.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), establishing an 'expedited removal' process for aliens arriving at U.S. ports of entry with fraudulent or no valid documentation.
- Perlina Perez, a 70-year-old citizen of the Dominican Republic, traveled to the United States with a valid tourist visa to visit her ill daughter and grandchild.
- Flor Aquino de Pacheco, a 44-year-old citizen of the Dominican Republic, also arrived in the United States possessing a valid tourist visa.
- On or about May 3, 1997, upon their arrival, immigration officials subjected both Perez and Aquino de Pacheco to the new expedited removal process.
- During the inspection, officials denied them access to counsel, family, and friends.
- Both women were ordered to sign a form written in English, a language they could neither read nor write.
- Perez was detained for nineteen hours, and both women alleged they were not provided with adequate food or access to restroom facilities.
- Officials summarily removed both Perez and Aquino de Pacheco from the United States and barred them from returning for five years.
Procedural Posture:
- Ten immigrant assistance organizations and numerous individual aliens filed three separate lawsuits against the Attorney General and other immigration officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The lawsuits challenged the legality and constitutionality of the expedited removal system established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).
- The District Court consolidated the three cases to resolve the related legal issues in a single opinion.
- The government defendants filed motions to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the expedited removal provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which restrict an alien's access to counsel and judicial review upon initial entry, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment rights of immigrant assistance organizations?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, District Judge
No, the expedited removal provisions of IIRIRA do not violate the Fifth or First Amendments. The Supreme Court has long held that Congress possesses plenary power over the admission of aliens, and whatever procedure Congress authorizes for aliens seeking initial entry constitutes due process. Because aliens seeking initial admission are considered to be at the border and have no constitutional right to enter, they are not entitled to the procedural due process protections of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs, Perez and Aquino de Pacheco, were initial entrants, not returning permanent residents, and therefore had no constitutionally cognizable liberty interest in their admission. Regarding the First Amendment claim, controlling precedent from the D.C. Circuit holds that the government does not infringe upon a third party's right of association or speech by holding an unadmitted alien incommunicado for a period of time. The government has no affirmative duty to provide organizations access to aliens during the inspection process, which is not a public forum. Finally, the court lacks jurisdiction to review 'as-applied' challenges to unwritten agency practices, as IIRIRA explicitly limits judicial review to written regulations and policies.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the plenary power doctrine, which grants Congress near-absolute authority over immigration matters, particularly the admission of aliens. It clarifies that individuals seeking initial entry into the U.S. have virtually no constitutional due process rights in that context, effectively immunizing expedited removal procedures from such challenges. The ruling also significantly curtails the ability of legal and advocacy organizations to challenge immigration enforcement by setting a high bar for Article III standing and narrowly interpreting their First Amendment right of access to potential clients in government custody. The court's interpretation of IIRIRA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions highlights Congress's power to limit judicial oversight of agency actions, particularly unwritten, on-the-ground practices.
