Fiallo v. Bell case brief summary
430 U.S. 787 (1977)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, unwed natural fathers and their illegitimate offspring, sought review of a decision of the district court finding that the statutory provisions regarding the admission of appellants into the United States were not unconstitutional because they were neither wholly devoid of any conceivable rational purpose nor fundamentally aimed at achieving a goal unrelated to the regulation of immigration.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
430 U.S. 787 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, unwed natural fathers and
their illegitimate offspring, sought review of a judgment of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
which found that 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101(b)(1)(D) and 1101(b)(2) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were not unconstitutional
because they were neither devoid of any conceivable rational purpose
nor aimed at achieving a goal unrelated to the regulation of
immigration.CASE FACTS
Appellants, unwed natural fathers and their illegitimate offspring, sought review of a decision of the district court finding that the statutory provisions regarding the admission of appellants into the United States were not unconstitutional because they were neither wholly devoid of any conceivable rational purpose nor fundamentally aimed at achieving a goal unrelated to the regulation of immigration.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The statute was not unconstitutional by virtue of the exclusion of the relationship between an illegitimate child and his natural father from the preferences accorded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to the child or parent of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. The court stressed the broad power of Congress over immigration and naturalization.
- The scope of judicial review was not a function of the nature of the policy choice at issue.
- The policy questions raised were exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the government and the court had no judicial authority to substitute its judgment for that of Congress.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment