Lexplug logoLexplug

United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaugnessy

Supreme Court of United States
347 U.S. 260 (1954)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal administrative agency must adhere to its own procedural regulations. When regulations delegate discretionary authority to a subordinate body, the head of the agency violates those regulations by dictating or pre-judging the outcome of a matter pending before that body.


Facts:

  • Joseph Accardi, an Italian citizen, entered the United States from Canada in 1932 without inspection or an immigration visa, making him deportable.
  • Accardi resided continuously in the United States after his entry.
  • In 1948, Accardi applied for suspension of deportation, a form of discretionary relief available under the Immigration Act of 1917.
  • In 1952, while Accardi's application was pending, the U.S. Attorney General prepared a confidential list of approximately 100 individuals, including Accardi, whom the Attorney General 'planned to deport.'
  • This list was circulated within the Department of Justice, including to the members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had been delegated authority to decide Accardi's application.

Procedural Posture:

  • Deportation proceedings were initiated against Accardi in 1947.
  • A hearing officer found Accardi deportable and recommended denying his application for suspension of deportation.
  • The Acting Commissioner of Immigration adopted the hearing officer's recommendation on July 7, 1952.
  • The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body, affirmed the denial of relief on April 3, 1953.
  • Accardi's wife filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging the BIA's decision was prejudged.
  • The District Court, a trial court, summarily denied the writ without holding an evidentiary hearing on the allegations.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's decision.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' judgment.

Locked

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 Attorney General's circulation of a confidential list of 'unsavory characters' slated for deportation to the Board of Immigration Appeals, prior to the Board's decision on a listed individual's application for suspension of deportation, render the Board's subsequent denial of that application invalid under governing federal regulations?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Clark

Yes, the Attorney General's circulation of the list invalidates the Board's decision if the allegations are proven. As long as the governing regulations remain operative, the Attorney General cannot sidestep the Board or dictate its decision. The regulations, which have the force of law, delegate the Attorney General's discretionary authority to the Board, requiring the Board to exercise its own independent judgment. The petition alleges that the Attorney General's list of 'proscribed' deportees effectively dictated the Board's decision, thereby preventing the fair hearing and independent exercise of discretion that the regulations guarantee. The case is not about reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised, but about the Board's alleged failure to exercise any discretion at all. Accardi is therefore entitled to a hearing in the District Court to prove his allegations.


Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson

No, the Attorney General's actions do not provide a basis for judicial interference. Suspension of deportation is an act of executive grace, analogous to a pardon, and is not a legal right subject to judicial review. The Board of Immigration Appeals is not an independent judicial body but a subordinate entity within the Attorney General's own department, created by him and responsible only to him. Therefore, any decision by the Board is legally the Attorney General's decision, and its validity cannot be impeached by showing that he influenced his own staff. The regulations cannot redelegate the Attorney General's statutory discretion in a way that makes the Board's decision subject to judicial review, as its opinions are merely advisory to him.



Analysis:

This case establishes the foundational administrative law principle known as the 'Accardi doctrine,' which holds that an agency must follow its own rules. This decision affirms that even when an agency creates procedures that are not required by statute or the Constitution, it is bound to adhere to them. The doctrine provides a crucial due process protection, preventing agency heads from subverting established procedures and ensuring that individuals receive the benefit of the process they are promised. It reinforces the rule of law within the executive branch, even in areas of broad discretionary authority like immigration.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaugnessy (1954) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaugnessy