McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.
498 U.S. 479 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that bars judicial review of "a determination respecting an application" for an administrative benefit does not preclude a federal district court from exercising general federal-question jurisdiction over a collateral, class-action lawsuit alleging a pattern or practice of unconstitutional procedures by the agency in processing those applications.
Facts:
- Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (Reform Act), which established a Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) amnesty program allowing certain alien farmworkers to apply for legal residency.
- Successful applicants would gain lawful temporary residency, a work authorization, and the ability to eventually become permanent residents.
- The Haitian Refugee Center and other plaintiffs alleged that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) systematically violated applicants' due process rights in administering the SAW program.
- The alleged unlawful practices included denying applicants the opportunity to present witnesses or to confront adverse evidence used against them.
- Plaintiffs also claimed the INS failed to provide competent interpreters for non-English speaking applicants, specifically those who spoke Haitian Creole.
- Additionally, the INS allegedly did not make verbatim recordings of applicant interviews, which hindered the possibility of meaningful administrative review.
- The INS allegedly used a secret list of employers whose supporting affidavits were automatically discredited without giving applicants an opportunity to provide corroborating evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- The Haitian Refugee Center, two other organizations, and 17 individual applicants (plaintiffs) filed a class action lawsuit against the INS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The District Court found it had jurisdiction, certified the class, and granted a preliminary injunction ordering the INS to change its procedures.
- The INS (appellant) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that federal jurisdiction was not barred for systemic challenges to agency practices.
- The Commissioner of the INS (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 210(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which limits judicial review of individual denials of Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) status applications to deportation proceedings, also preclude a federal district court from exercising general federal-question jurisdiction over a class action lawsuit alleging a pattern or practice of unconstitutional procedures by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in administering the SAW program?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. Section 210(e) of the INA does not preclude federal district court jurisdiction over a broad challenge to the INS's unconstitutional practices. The statutory language limiting review of "a determination respecting an application" refers to the direct review of individual denials of SAW status, not to general collateral challenges to unconstitutional agency policies and practices. The court reasoned that the statute's specified review mechanism—which limits review to deportation proceedings and applies an 'abuse of discretion' standard based on the administrative record—is wholly inadequate for resolving systemic constitutional claims. The administrative record would not contain evidence of a pattern of misconduct, and a court of appeals lacks the fact-finding capabilities of a district court. Furthermore, requiring an alien to surrender for deportation to obtain review is tantamount to a complete denial of judicial review. Citing Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, the Court distinguished this case, which challenges the method of determination, from cases like Heckler v. Ringer, which were essentially challenges to the substantive denial of benefits.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The plain language of the statute precludes this type of lawsuit in district court. The statute's command that there shall be "no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application" except as provided is clear and comprehensive. A challenge to the procedures used to reach a determination is inextricably linked to the 'determination respecting an application' itself. Respondents are attempting to bypass a clear congressional restriction on judicial review by styling their claim as a challenge to general policies, an argument the Court rejected in Heckler v. Ringer. The strong presumption of judicial review does not apply when Congress has spoken so clearly to limit it. Congress is constitutionally permitted to limit judicial review in this context, especially when conferring a benefit like amnesty, and the Court should not create an alternative review scheme that Congress deliberately chose to foreclose.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant principle in administrative law, creating a pathway for judicial review of systemic agency misconduct even when a statute appears to strip jurisdiction. By distinguishing between challenges to individual adjudications and broader 'pattern and practice' claims, the Court preserved the district courts' role in overseeing the constitutional regularity of administrative processes. This ruling provides a critical check on agencies that might otherwise believe their unconstitutional procedures are insulated from review by a jurisdiction-stripping statute. It ensures that when a statutory review scheme is practically inadequate for addressing systemic constitutional violations, general federal-question jurisdiction remains available.
