Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Facts

Chadha, born in Kenya, was lawfully admitted to the United States in 1966 on a nonimmigrant student visa. The visa expired on June 30, 1972. At a deportation hearing he conceded he was deportable but applied for suspension of deportation under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section let the Attorney General suspend deportation of an alien who had been in the country continuously for seven years, was of good moral character, and would suffer extreme hardship if deported. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge found that Chadha met these requirements and suspended his deportation. The suspension was reported to Congress. Under section 244(c)(2), either House could pass a resolution stating that it did not favor the suspension, and the Attorney General then had to deport the alien. On December 12, 1975, a House subcommittee chairman introduced a resolution opposing permanent residence for six aliens, including Chadha. The House passed it without debate or recorded vote. The session, the last in which Congress could act, ended on December 19, 1975. The resolution had not been printed beforehand, and it was not sent to the Senate or presented to the President. The Immigration Judge then reopened the case, and on November 8, 1976, Chadha was ordered deported.

Issues

1. Can the Court decide this case, given the objections that the INS is not aggrieved, Chadha lacks standing, no real controversy exists, and the issue is a political question?
2. Does a resolution by one House of Congress overriding the Attorney General's decision to suspend a deportation comply with the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I?
3. Can the one-House veto provision in section 244(c)(2) be severed from the rest of section 244, so that the Attorney General's suspension power survives without it?

Holding

The one-House veto in section 244(c)(2) was legislative in purpose and effect and fit no express constitutional exception, so it violated the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I. The provision is unconstitutional but severable from the rest of the Act.