Filed Date: Dec. 6, 1983
Closed Date: 1996
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 6, 1983, a coalition of plaintiffs, including the National Center for Immigrants Rights, Inc., other immigration rights groups and individual alien detainees, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking to block the INS' implementation of a new regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 103.6(a)(2), which prohibited aliens from engaging in employment pending the outcome of their deportation hearings. Plaintiffs contended that the regulation violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and other federal laws.
The District Court (Judge David V. Kenyon) entered a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the INS regulation. The INS appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. National Center for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984)
On remand, Judge Kenyon declared regulation invalid and the government again appealed. National Center For Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 644 F.Supp. 5 (C.D.Cal. 1985). The Ninth Circuit affirmed. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 791 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case in light of the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. National Center For Immigrants' Rights, 481 U.S. 1009, 107 S.Ct. 1881, 95 L.Ed.2d 489 (1987).
On remand, the District Court (Judge Kenyon) reaffirmed its prior judgment, and the government again appealed. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal because of a defective notice of appeal. That motion was denied. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 892 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1989). In ruling on the merits of the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Circuit Judge Ferguson) affirmed, holding that the blanket no-work condition of the regulation was not within the discretion of the INS and that it was contrary to the congressional intent behind the Immigration Reform and Control Act. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S., 913 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court granted certiorari. I.N.S. v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 499 U.S. 946, 111 S.Ct. 1412, 113 L.Ed.2d 465(1991).
A unanimous Supreme Court (Justice Stevens) reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case, holding that the regulation on its face was consistent with the Attorney General's statutory authority. I.N.S. v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 112 S.Ct. 551, 116 L.Ed.2d 546 (1991).
On final remand, Judge Kenyon decertified the case, dismissed the remaining claims of plaintiffs and terminated the case.
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (12/3/2007)
Ferguson, Warren John (California)
Gzesk, Susan (Massachusetts)
Bolton, John R. (District of Columbia)
Bonner, Robert C. (California)
Daly, John F. (District of Columbia)
Ferguson, Warren John (California)
Hug, Procter Ralph Jr. (Nevada)
Kenyon, David Vreeland (California)
Norris, William Albert (California)
Reichmann, Joseph (California)
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)
Solomon, Gus Jerome (Oregon)
Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)
Trott, Stephen S. (Idaho)
Wright, Eugene Allen (Washington)
Bolton, John R. (District of Columbia)
Bonner, Robert C. (California)
Daly, John F. (District of Columbia)
Herwig, Barbara L. (District of Columbia)
Lipstein, Freddi (District of Columbia)
Marzen, Stephen J. (District of Columbia)
Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)
Last updated March 20, 2024, 3:15 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 6, 1983
Closing Date: 1996
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Aliens who were denied engaging in employment pending outcome of their deportation hearings.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Immigration and Naturalization Service, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border: