From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reagan v. Abourezk

U.S.
Oct 19, 1987
484 U.S. 1 (1987)

Summary

finding "persuasive" the plaintiff's argument that the government's statutory interpretation violated provisions of the INA "because it effectively swallow[ed] up" another provision, thereby "nullif[ying] the contours of existing inadmissibility grounds and "evad[ing] the limitations of Congress"

Summary of this case from Doe v. Trump

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 86-656.

Argued October 5, 1987 Decided October 19, 1987

251 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 785 F.2d 1043, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Roger Clegg, Michael Jay Singer, and Abraham D. Sofaer.

Steven R. Shapiro argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur N. Eisenberg, John A. Powell, Charles S. Sims, Peter L. Zimroth, Michael D. Young, and Leonard Boudin.

Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bar Association by Eugene C. Thomas, William A. Bradford, Jr., and David W. Burgett; for the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association et al. by Robert M. Kaufman, Carl R. Baldwin, and Steven M. Freeman; for the International Human Rights Law Group by Eli Whitney Debevoise II and Kimberly Till; and for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights et al. by Arthur C. Helton.
Ann H. Franke and Jacqueline W. Mintz filed a brief for the American Association of University Professors et al. as amici curiae.


The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in the decision of this case. JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Reagan v. Abourezk

U.S.
Oct 19, 1987
484 U.S. 1 (1987)

finding "persuasive" the plaintiff's argument that the government's statutory interpretation violated provisions of the INA "because it effectively swallow[ed] up" another provision, thereby "nullif[ying] the contours of existing inadmissibility grounds and "evad[ing] the limitations of Congress"

Summary of this case from Doe v. Trump
Case details for

Reagan v. Abourezk

Case Details

Full title:REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. ABOUREZK ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 19, 1987

Citations

484 U.S. 1 (1987)
108 S. Ct. 252

Citing Cases

Overseas Education Ass'n v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

This court has explained that "[t]his examination should begin with the language of the statute, but the…

Saavedra Bruno v. Albright

Rather, in Webster v. Doe, id. at 599-600, as in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Court…