Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9588&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:33:39+00:00

Document:
On April 3, 1987, eight resident aliens filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming that the federal government targeted them for deportation because of their affiliation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that the government deemed to be an international terrorist and communist organization. The government had charged all eight plaintiffs under the McCarran Walter Act, which provided for deportation of aliens who advocated communism. Plaintiffs alleged that the government was selectively enforcing the law in violation of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. They sought an injunction to stop the pending deportation proceedings. A second amended complaint was filed on June 15, 1988, which added a Fifth Amendment claim.
On April 5, 1991, the McCarran Walter Act was repealed. The government instituted new proceedings against plaintiffs Hamide and Shehadeh under the "terrorist activity" provision of the Immigration Act of 1990 ("the IMMACT"), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(B) (1994).
The District Court (Judge Steven V. Wilson) found that it had no jurisdiction over the claims of two plaintiffs, Hamide and Shehadehm, but ruled in favor of the other six plaintiffs granted a preliminary injunction staying the immigration proceedings. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Meese, 714 F.Supp. 1060, 1064. (C.D.Cal.1989). On appeal, The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction and concluded that the District Court had jurisdiction over the all claims, including those of plaintiffs Hamide and Shehadeh. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Thornburgh, 970 F.2d 501, 511 (9th Cir.1991). On remand, the District Court refused to dissolve the injunction and then entered an injunction staying the proceedings against Hamide and Shehadeh. The government appealed.
While the appeal was pending, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which contained in part, an exclusive jurisdiction clause, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which deprived courts of jurisdiction over immigration cases. The government then moved to dismiss in the District Court and Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had jurisdiction and affirmed its injunctions. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno, 119 F.3d 1367 (9th Cir. 1997). Petition for a writ of certiorari was granted.
The Supreme Court (Justice Scalia) vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the exclusive jurisdiction clause of IIRIRA deprived courts of jurisdiction over action. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d (1999).
Plaintiff Description Aliens applying for citizenship under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, who had their constitutional rights violated by the Attorney General.
The Oyez Project, Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999).

References: § 1983
 § 1251
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 v.