Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Joseph Patrick Doherty
The Court confirmed that the Attorney General of the United States has broad discretion to reopen deportation (now called "removal") proceedings, as well as other adjudications heard before immigration courts.
502 U.S. 314 · No. 90-925 · 1991 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jan 15, 1992 · argued Oct 16, 1991
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: Hobbs Act; i.e., 18 USC 1951
Majority opinion: William Rehnquist
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed. Immigration and Naturalization Service won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Immigration and Naturalization Service was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave 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. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case which confirmed that the Attorney General of the United States has broad discretion to reopen deportation (now called "removal") proceedings, as well as other adjudications heard before immigration courts.
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 1991 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
William RehnquistWrote the majority opinion
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Clarence Thomas.
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
- Joseph Patrick DohertyAlien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose 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.
- Decided by
- Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
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.
- Jan 15, 1992DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. Immigration and Naturalization Service won.
- Oct 16, 1991ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
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
7 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: Hobbs Act; i.e., 18 USC 1951, newest first.
- United States v. Taylor142 S. Ct. 2015Jun 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2015Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Ocasio v. United States578 U.S. 282May 2, 2016 · 578 U.S. 282Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Sekhar v. United States570 U.S. 729Jun 26, 2013 · 570 U.S. 729Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Culbert435 U.S. 371Mar 28, 1978 · 435 U.S. 371Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Enmons et al.410 U.S. 396Feb 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 396Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Callanan v. United States364 U.S. 587Jan 9, 1961 · 364 U.S. 587Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Green et al.350 U.S. 415Mar 26, 1956 · 350 U.S. 415Criminal procedure6–36–3 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.