Fiallo v. Bell
430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress's legislative power over the admission and exclusion of aliens is exceptionally broad and largely immune from judicial control. Statutory distinctions in immigration law that discriminate on the basis of sex and legitimacy, such as granting preferential status to illegitimate children through their mothers but not their fathers, are subject only to narrow judicial review and do not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection principles.
Facts:
- Appellant Ramon Martin Fiallo, a United States citizen, resided in the Dominican Republic with his natural, unwed father, appellant Ramon Fiallo-Sone, a citizen of that country.
- Appellant Cleophus Warner, a naturalized United States citizen, is the unwed father of appellant Serge Warner, who was born in the French West Indies. Warner acknowledged paternity, is named on Serge's birth certificate, and has supported him since birth.
- Appellants Trevor Wilson and Earl Wilson, both permanent resident aliens in the U.S., are the illegitimate children of appellant Arthur Wilson, a citizen of Jamaica.
- Following the death of their mother, Trevor and Earl Wilson sought to have their natural father, Arthur Wilson, immigrate to the United States.
- Each of the three unwed fathers or their illegitimate children sought special immigration preference based on their parent-child relationship, which the Immigration and Nationality Act grants for relationships between mothers and illegitimate children but not fathers and illegitimate children.
Procedural Posture:
- Three sets of unwed fathers and their illegitimate children were informed by immigration authorities that they were ineligible for preferential immigration status.
- The families (Appellants) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Attorney General (Appellee), challenging the constitutionality of the relevant immigration statutes.
- A three-judge District Court was convened, which held that the statutory provisions were constitutional and granted judgment for the Government.
- The Appellants then appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which deny preferential immigration status to illegitimate children based on their relationship with their natural fathers while granting it for their relationship with their natural mothers, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, the challenged sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that Congress's power over the admission of aliens is more complete than over any other conceivable subject and is largely immune from judicial control. This long-established rule dictates a narrow standard of review for immigration legislation, even when such laws make distinctions that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens in a domestic context. The Court rejected the argument that a higher level of scrutiny should apply because the law infringes on the familial rights of U.S. citizens, citing Kleindienst v. Mandel for the proposition that courts will not look behind the exercise of congressionally delegated power in the immigration context. The legislative distinctions are policy questions entrusted exclusively to the political branches, and Congress may have had rational reasons for them, such as concerns about the difficulty of proving paternity and the potential for fraud.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the statutory provisions violate the Fifth Amendment. The majority abdicates its judicial responsibility by applying a 'toothless' review to a law that discriminates among U.S. citizens. The purpose of this legislation is to grant a right to citizens—the ability to reunite with their immediate families—not a right to aliens. When Congress grants a fundamental right to some citizens but denies it to others based on invidious classifications like gender and legitimacy, the courts must apply traditional, heightened constitutional scrutiny. The government's justifications, such as administrative convenience or difficulty in proving paternity, are insufficient to justify this interference with the fundamental right of family association, especially when the Immigration and Naturalization Service already has procedures to handle complex paternity questions in other contexts (e.g., for step-parents).
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the 'plenary power' doctrine, which grants Congress almost absolute authority over immigration matters. The decision establishes that even classifications based on sex and legitimacy, which would trigger heightened scrutiny in a domestic context, are permissible in immigration law under a highly deferential standard of review. It significantly narrows the avenues for challenging immigration statutes on equal protection grounds, making it extremely difficult for such challenges to succeed. The case illustrates the stark contrast between the constitutional protections afforded within the U.S. and the limited judicial oversight of laws governing who may enter it.
Unlock the full brief for Fiallo v. Bell