Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 121

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

46

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Thomas, J., dissenting

(INS) procedures for administering an amnesty program
for illegal aliens. Despite the availability of judicial review
of these procedures in the context of statutorily authorized
review of orders of exclusion or deportation, and notwith-
standing the statute’s express prohibition of judicial re-
view of an INS “determination respecting an application
for adjustment of status [under the amnesty program],” 8
U. S. C. § 1160(e)(1), we held that these factors did not suf-
ﬁce to trump the “strong presumption in favor of judicial
review of administrative action.” Haitian Refugee Center,
498 U. S., at 498.

The majority declines to employ the presumption in
favor of preenforcement review to resolve the ambiguity
in § 1395ii; instead, it concocts a presumption against pre-
enforcement review, stating that its holding is “consisten[t]
with the distinction that this Court has often drawn between
a total preclusion of review and postponement of review.”
Ante, at 19 (citing Salﬁ, 422 U. S., at 762; Thunder Basin
Coal, supra, at 207, n. 8; Haitian Refugee Center, supra, at
496–499). But Thunder Basin Coal, as noted, supra, at 45,
teaches only that the presumption is not as strong when the
problem is one of delayed judicial review rather than com-
plete denial of judicial review—it does not establish that the
presumption lacks any force in the former context. And
Haitian Refugee Center directly supports the applicability
of the presumption in favor of preenforcement review; we
there invoked the presumption even though the plaintiffs had
a postenforcement review option—voluntarily surrendering
themselves for deportation and availing themselves of the
statutorily authorized judicial review of an order of exclu-
sion or deportation.
498 U. S., at 496. Only Salﬁ provides
the majority with modest support insofar as it acknowledged
(and distinguished) just the presumption against the com-
plete denial of judicial review, 422 U. S., at 762, omitting men-
tion of the presumption against delayed judicial review. But
this omission is readily explained: Presentment of a Social