Reagan v. Abourezk
 | |
| Reagan v. Abourezk | |
| Docket number: 86-656 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William Brennan • Byron White • Thurgood Marshall • Harry Blackmun • John Paul Stevens • Sandra Day O'Connor • Antonin Scalia | |
Reagan v. Abourezk is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided on October 19, 1987, regarding statutory limits on the denial of non-immigrant visas. At issue was whether Title 8 of the United States Code permitted the executive branch of the federal government to deny visas to individuals associated with communist organizations invited to the United States by U.S. citizens and residents in order to attend meetings and address audiences here.[1]
On October 19, 1987, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling—concluding that the district court incorrectly examined past interpretation of the relevant statute—vacated the district court's dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 3-3 per curiam decision. Justice Harry Blackmun took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Antonin Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.[2][3] Click here to learn more about the outcome of the case.
Background
U.S. citizens and residents including members of Congress like Senator James Abourezk (D-S.D.) and journalists, invited several foreign citizens to come to the United States and speak on various issues of public concern, including Tomas Borge, Interior Minister of Nicaragua. The State Department denied the visa requests under the Immigration and Nationality Act's public interest provision, which allows the State Department to deny the visa application of any individual who "seeks to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States," and under a provision allowing exclusion of foreign nationals who is or has ever been a member of the Communist Party.[3][4][5]
After the denials, the petitioners ("Abourezk") sought injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the State Department in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the denials on two statutory grounds and one constitutional ground. First, the plaintiffs argued that the public interest provision only justified denying visas to individuals whose activities, not mere presence in the country, would threaten public interest or welfare. Second, they argued that the public interest provision can only be invoked due to concerns of national security, rather than based on foreign policy concerns. Third, the plaintiffs contended that the State Department violated their First Amendment constitutional rights to freedom of association and to hear alternative viewpoints by denying the visas.[3][5]
In response, the State Department ("Reagan") filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. In its opinion, the court first held that no distinction existed between a person's presence and activities that may threaten the public interest. Second, the court held that statutory language and prior agency interpretation provided no basis for the plaintiff's argument that visas could only be denied on national security, rather than foreign policy, grounds. Third, the court concluded that the State Department had denied the visas for facially legitimate and bona fide reasons, meaning the denials were not baseless and were therefore within the bounds of the Constitution.[3][5]
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court's opinion and considered an additional claim from the petitioners: whether the State Department had denied the visas under the public interest provision to avoid meeting additional criteria that came with denying a visa for associations with communism, a provision also outlined in the INA. The D.C. Court of Appeals accepted this additional claim and found that the district court incorrectly evaluated prior agency interpretation of the INA, holding that questions remained with regard to the factual claims of the case. The court vacated the district court's holding and remanded the case for further consideration.[1][3]
The State Department appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
Questions presented
The court limited oral arguments to the following questions:[6]
|
Outcome
On October 19, 1987, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling—concluding that the district court incorrectly examined past interpretation of the relevant statute—vacated the district court's dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings in a 3-3 per curiam decision. Justice Harry Blackmun took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Antonin Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.[2][3]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Reagan v. Abourezk (1987)
- Oyez case file for Reagan v. Abourezk (1987)
- Abourezk v. Reagan (1986)
- Abourezk v. Reagan (1984)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Reagan v. Abourezk, decided March 11, 1986
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, Reagan v. Abourezk, decided October 19, 1987
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Cornell International Law Journal, "Abourezk v. Reagan: Curbing Recent Abuses of the Executive Immigration Power," accessed February 15, 2017
- ↑ ProCon.org, "Reagan v. Abourezk," December 31, 2009
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Abourezk v. Reagan, decided July 27, 1984
- ↑ United States Department of Justice, "RONALD W. REAGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. JAMES ABOUREZK, ET AL.," accessed February 15, 2017
