Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha et al.
The Court held that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.
462 U.S. 919 · No. 80-1832 · 1982 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 23, 1983 · argued Feb 22, 1982, reargued Dec 7, 1982
Miscellaneous · Legislative veto
Landmark · Separation of powersStruck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: Warren Burger
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Immigration and Naturalization Service lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Immigration and Naturalization Service was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1982 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Warren BurgerWrote the majority opinion
Lewis PowellWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
William RehnquistWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Immigration and Naturalization ServiceImmigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement
- Respondent
- Chadha et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 23, 1983DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Immigration and Naturalization Service lost.
- Dec 7, 1982RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
- Feb 22, 1982ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
1 other argued case since 1946 on legislative veto, newest first.
- Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor, et al.480 U.S. 678Mar 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 678Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.