Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the one-house legislative veto unconstitutional
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.
Background
Section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorized the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to suspend deportation of an alien continually residing in the United States for at least seven years, where the U.S. attorney general, in his discretion, found that deportation would result in "extreme hardship". After making such a finding, the attorney general would transmit a report to Congress pursuant to § 244(c)(1), and either house of Congress had the power to veto the attorney general's determination pursuant to § 244(c)(2). Chadha challenged the veto found in § 244(c)(2).
Case history
Respondent Jagdish Rai Chadha was born in the British colony of Kenya to Indian parents. Chadha was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and entered the United States on a British passport when studying in Ohio as a foreign exchange student. After Kenya's declaration of independence from Britain in 1963 he was not recognized as a legitimate citizen or resident of Kenya (as his parents were Indian) or India (as he was born in Kenya). Furthermore, his right of abode in the United Kingdom was stripped under the Immigration Act 1971 due to his lack of connection with the United Kingdom. After his non-immigrant student visa expired in 1972, none of the three countries would accept him onto their territory, rendering him de facto stateless.
The public source identifies “Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha” as 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the one-house legislative veto unconstitutional. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Immigration, Naturalization and Service.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha”, the useful work is to connect “1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the one-house legislative veto unconstitutional” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16985733. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1983, 1963, 1971 and 1972.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha primary sources, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha archive and Immigration research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.