User:35.22.140.217/sandbox

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999) is the first case to reach the Supreme Court after the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The respondents, who were resident aliens, filed this suit, and claimed that the petitioners, the Attorney General and other federal entities, targeted them for deportation because of their political affiliation with an unpopular party. The respondents claimed that this deportation was in violation of their First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights. This case argued whether immigrants singled out for deportation based on their political beliefs are entitled to bring federal action in court for deportation proceedings brought in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights.

Background
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), instituted deportation proceedings in 1987 against Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat, Julie Mungai, Amjad Obeid, Ayman Obeid, Naim Sharif, Khader Hamide, and Michel Shehadeh, who had all had previous involvement in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that the Government characterized a communist and terrorist organization The INS charged all eight under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarren-Walter Act which at the time allowed for the deportation of aliens who "advocate ... world communism." The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has since been repealed. Some of the eight respondents were also charged with routine status violations such as overstaying a visa and failure to maintain student status.

Parties to the Proceedings
These Department of Justice officials are petitioners in the Supreme Court, appellants in the court of appeals and defendants in the district court: Janet Reno, Attorney General; Harold Ezell; C.M. McCullough; Doris Meissner, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); Ernest E. Gustafson; Richard K. Rogers; Gilbert Reeves, officer of the INS. The following were plaintiffs in the district court, appellees in the court of appeals, and respondents in the Supreme Court: American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat; Khader Musa Hamide; Nuangugi Julie Mungai; Amjad Obeid; Ayman Mustafa Obeid; Naim Sharif; Michel Ibrahim Shehadeh.

Provisions of the Law
Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit ruled that the INS had engaged in unconstitutional selective prosecution by targeting eight non- citizens on the basis of their political support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The fact that none of the eight selected for deportation had ever been charged or accused of a crime supported this ruling that the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were violated due to selective deportation.

During these initial proceedings Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which repealed the old judicial-review scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act, that had restricted judicial review of the Attorney General's "decision or action" to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act" "[e]xcept as provided in this section." The Attorney General filed motions in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 deprived jurisdiction over the respondents’ claims.

The Supreme Court argued whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to enjoin the selective prosecution through an action in federal district court. The Court questioned, whether in light of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act the district court could legally allow the plaintiffs' challenge to the deportation proceeding prior to final order of deportation.

Decision
In the 8-1 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that the IIRIRA deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over the selective-enforcement claim. Justice Scalia wrote, "[a]s a general matter -- and assuredly in the context of claims such as those put forward in the present case -- an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation." The government argued that the process for deportation for respondents must be started, before they are able to appeal the deportation order to the court of appeals and that the appellate court may then transfer the case to a district court for discovery if the selective prosecution claim requires resolution of factual issues not addressed in the administrative record.

There have been similar cases after Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee that have issued similar rulings. All concerning legal resident aliens being deported for previous criminal activity years before. In these cases, the government argues that those immigrants are barred from challenging the retroactive application of 1996 immigration act because IIRIRA purports to eliminate all judicial review of their deportation orders.