Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.
509 U.S. 155 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Neither § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act nor Article 33 of the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees applies extraterritorially to restrict the U.S. government's ability to intercept aliens on the high seas and return them to their country of origin without a refugee status determination.
Facts:
- In 1981, the United States and Haiti entered an agreement allowing the U.S. Coast Guard to intercept vessels on the high seas carrying undocumented Haitian aliens.
- President Reagan issued an executive order implementing this agreement, which initially provided that individuals identified as refugees would not be returned to Haiti without their consent.
- Following a violent military coup in Haiti in September 1991 that overthrew President Jean Bertrand Aristide, a mass exodus of Haitians began, with thousands fleeing by sea.
- The U.S. initially screened these interdicted individuals for refugee status, first on Coast Guard cutters and later at a temporary facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
- By May 1992, the number of interdicted Haitians overwhelmed U.S. facilities, with over 34,000 intercepted in the prior six months.
- In response to the crisis, President Bush issued Executive Order No. 12807, which directed the Coast Guard to intercept Haitian vessels and return all passengers directly to Haiti without conducting any onboard screening to determine their potential refugee status.
- Upon taking office, President Clinton decided to continue the policy established by Executive Order No. 12807.
Procedural Posture:
- Haitian advocacy organizations and interdicted Haitians sued U.S. government officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the implementation of Executive Order No. 12807.
- The District Court, acting as the trial court, denied the application, concluding that § 243(h) does not apply in international waters.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that § 243(h)(1) applies to all aliens regardless of their location.
- The U.S. government (petitioners) appealed 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 the President's executive order directing the Coast Guard to intercept and forcibly return aliens to their home country without a refugee hearing, when such actions occur on the high seas, violate § 243(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Article 33 of the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The President's executive order directing the interdiction and repatriation of aliens on the high seas does not violate § 243(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Article 33 of the U.N. Protocol. The Court reasoned that both the statute and the treaty apply only territorially, within the United States, and do not govern actions taken in international waters. First, the text of § 243(h)(1) prohibits the 'Attorney General' from 'deport[ing] or return[ing]' an alien, which refers to her specific duties in domestic exclusion and deportation proceedings, not to actions taken by the President or the Coast Guard abroad. The Court applied the strong presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes, finding no clear congressional intent to the contrary. The 1980 amendment removing the phrase 'within the United States' was meant only to extend protection to aliens in exclusion proceedings, not to expand the statute's geographic reach. Second, the text and negotiating history of Article 33 of the U.N. Convention indicate it was not intended to have extraterritorial effect. The use of 'expel or return ('refouler')' parallels the domestic legal distinction between deportation and exclusion, and a textual reference in Article 33.2 to 'the country in which he is' suggests the entire article applies only to refugees physically present in a signatory state's territory. The negotiating history confirms that several signatory nations explicitly sought to avoid any obligation regarding mass migrations at their borders or actions outside their territory.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The executive order violates both the statute and the treaty. The plain meaning of the statutory term 'return' and the treaty term 'refouler' (to repel or drive back) encompasses precisely the government's action of forcibly sending refugees back to their persecutors, regardless of location. The statute's language, prohibiting the return of 'any alien,' is unambiguous and contains no geographical limitation. Crucially, Congress's 1980 amendment deliberately removed the territorial restriction 'within the United States,' demonstrating a clear intent to apply the non-return obligation extraterritorially. The majority errs by restoring language Congress explicitly deleted. The presumption against extraterritoriality is inapplicable where congressional intent is clear, and it has less force for statutes like the INA that inherently deal with international matters. The majority's interpretation violates the canon that statutes should be construed consistently with international law, as it contravenes the core humanitarian purpose of the Refugee Convention.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes a territorial limit on the non-refoulement obligations of the United States under both domestic and international refugee law. By sanctioning the executive branch's power to interdict and repatriate migrants on the high seas without conducting refugee screenings, the ruling significantly shapes U.S. immigration policy for maritime arrivals. It creates a critical legal distinction between the rights of asylum-seekers who reach U.S. territory and those intercepted before arrival. The case solidifies presidential authority in immigration enforcement in international waters and curtails the reach of statutory and treaty-based protections for refugees.
Unlock the full brief for Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.