Opinion ID: 779123
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Effect of the Government's Plenary Power Over Immigration

Text: 12 The Government argues that the district court erred in ruling that the government's plenary power over immigration did not warrant deferential review. See, e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) (no First Amendment bar to excluding people because of their beliefs); Wong Wing, 163 U.S. at 237, 16 S.Ct. 977 (courts cannot limit Congress from expelling aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens). We are unpersuaded by the Government's claim, which would require complete deference in all facets of immigration law, including non-substantive immigration laws that infringe upon the Constitution. We hold that the Constitution meaningfully limits non-substantive immigration laws and does not require special deference to the Government. 13 The Government's broad authority over immigration was first announced more than one-hundred years ago in The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068 (1889). In that case, the Court recounted the strife following Chinese immigration to California after the gold rush of the mid-1800's. A convention of lawmakers in California had petitioned Congress to alleviate this problem. The petition charged, among other things, that: 14 the presence of Chinese laborers had a baneful effect upon the material interests of the State, and upon public morals; that their immigration was in numbers approaching the character of an Oriental invasion, and was a menace to our civilization.... 15 Id. at 595, 9 S.Ct. 623. Noting this plea against existing and anticipated evils, the Court valued the the well-founded apprehension — from the experience of years — that limitation to the immigration of certain classes from China was essential to the peace of the community on the Pacific Coast, and possibly the preservation of our civilization there. Id. at 594, 9 S.Ct. 623. Adding that [i]t seemed impossible for them to assimilate with our people or to make any change in their habits or modes of living[,] id. at 595, 9 S.Ct. 623, the Court found that if the government ... considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, this determination is conclusive upon the judiciary. Id. at 606, 9 S.Ct. 623; see also Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 792, 97 S.Ct. 1473 (The power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.) (citations omitted). This power was derived not from an express provision of the Constitution, but from powers incident to sovereignty. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. at 609, 9 S.Ct. 623. 16 Today, the Government seeks to expand upon the rule from this case. The Government argues that it has plenary authority over not only substantive immigration laws and decisions, but also non-substantive ones, like the Creppy directive. 6 Therefore, whether or not there is a First Amendment right of access to deportation proceedings, the Government argues, it can implement any non-substantive policy infringing upon that right if it is facially legitimate and bona fide. 7 See Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 770, 92 S.Ct. 2576. 17 Even The Chinese Exclusion Case, however, acknowledged that Congress's power over immigration matters was limited by the constitution itself. Id. at 604, 9 S.Ct. 623. Were we to adopt the Government's position, one would wonder whether and how the Constitution could limit the political branches' power over immigration matters. Similarly, that position would undercut the force of the First Amendment. The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information. New York Times, 403 U.S. at 723-24, 91 S.Ct. 2140 (Douglas, J., concurring) (citations omitted). It would be ironic, indeed, to allow the Government's assertion of plenary power to transform the First Amendment from the great instrument of open democracy to a safe harbor from public scrutiny. In the words of Justice Murphy, [such a] conclusion would make our constitutional safeguards transitory and discriminatory in nature.... [We] cannot agree that the framers of the Constitution meant to make such an empty mockery of human freedom. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 162, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945) (Murphy, J., concurring). As a result, the Government's stated position finds no authority in the Constitution and is untenable. 18
19 The Government's blanket reliance on Kleindienst ignores the varied aspects of immigration law. Immigration includes substantive laws over who may enter or remain in this country, laws governing procedural aspects of immigration hearings, and regulations on the mechanics of deportation. Although acknowledging the political branches' plenary power over all substantive immigration laws and non-substantive immigration laws that do not implicate constitutional rights, the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed for meaningful judicial review of non-substantive immigration laws where constitutional rights are involved. Kleindienst did not change these long-standing traditions. 20 In Kleindienst, Ernest Mandel, a self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxist and Belgian citizen, sought entry into the United States to speak at a conference at Stanford University. Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 756-59, 92 S.Ct. 2576. Mandel applied for and was denied a non-immigrant visa under a blanket provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, § 212(a)(28), prohibiting the entrance of anarchists or persons advocating the overthrow of the government. Id. at 759, 92 S.Ct. 2576. In excluding Mandel, the Attorney General declined to exercise his discretionary authority to waive this prohibition. Id. 21 Several professors brought suit alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. The Court stated the issue as this: Whether the First Amendment confers upon the appellee professors, because they wish to hear, speak, and debate with Mandel in person, the ability to determine that Mandel should be permitted to enter the country or, in other words, to compel the Attorney General to allow Mandel's admission. Id. at 762, 92 S.Ct. 2576. The Court, while acknowledging that the professors' First Amendment rights were implicated, affirmed the decision denying Mandel a visa. The Court stated: 22 [p]lenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens has long been firmly established. In the case of an alien excludable under § 212(a)(28), Congress has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive. We hold that when the Executive exercises this power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant. 23 Id. at 769-70, 92 S.Ct. 2576 (emphasis added). 24 Kleindienst differs from the present case in two important, and related, ways. First, Kleindienst involved a substantive immigration decision. The law and decision at issue determined who entered the United States. Here, the Creppy directive has no effect on the eventual outcome of the deportation hearings. Second, Kleindienst, although recognizing a constitutional right, did not give any weight to that right. It specifically declined to balance the First Amendment right against the government's plenary power, because the law was a substantive immigration law. Therefore, if the First Amendment limits non-substantive immigration laws, Kleindienst offers no authority that the Government's actions are entitled to deferential review — Kleindienst ignored the existence of the professors' First Amendment rights altogether. Nor does it offer authority that the First Amendment does not limit non-substantive immigration laws — Kleindienst involved a substantive immigration law. In a case such as this, where a non-substantive immigration law involving a constitutional right is at issue, the Supreme Court has always recognized the importance of that constitutional right, never deferring to an assertion of plenary authority. 25
26 The Supreme Court has always interpreted the Constitution meaningfully to limit non-substantive immigration laws, without granting the Government special deference. First, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that non-citizens are afforded the same constitutional protections of due process that we accord citizens. Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306, 309, 90 S.Ct. 1731, 26 L.Ed.2d 252 (1970) (citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596, 73 S.Ct. 472, 97 L.Ed. 576 (1953) (stating that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.)). 27 As old as the first immigration laws of this country is the recognition that non-citizens, even if illegally present in the United States, are persons entitled to the Fifth Amendment right of due process in deportation proceedings. See Wong Wing, 163 U.S. at 238, 16 S. Ct. 977 (recognizing Fifth Amendment right in deportation proceedings); see also Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) (It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.) (citing Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101, 23 S.Ct. 611, 47 L.Ed. 721 (1903) ( The Japanese Immigrant Case ); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50, 70 S. Ct. 445, 94 L. Ed. 616 (1050); Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 598, 73 S.Ct. 472). Therefore, the Fifth Amendment limits non-substantive immigration laws. 28 As firmly established as the due process rights of deportees is the rule that non-citizens seeking initial entry have no right to due process. See Ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212, 73 S.Ct. 625 ([A]n alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on different footing[.]). Non-citizens seeking initial entry have no ties to the United States, and are, therefore, not persons within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. See Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 598, 73 S.Ct. 472. Whatever process the government affords them, no matter how minimal, illusory, or secret, is due process of law, beyond the scope of judicial review. See Ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212, 73 S.Ct. 625 (citing Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 544, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317 (1950)). 29 Therefore, in stark contrast to a deportation hearing, the Government may exclude a non-citizen seeking initial entry without a hearing or disclosure of the evidence and reasons relied upon. Compare Knauff, 338 U.S. 537, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317, with Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 40 S.Ct. 566, 64 L.Ed. 1010 (1920). The difference between these two situations demonstrates not only that the Bill of Rights limits the government's power over non-substantive immigration laws, but also that the limitation is meaningful. The Government is not entitled to special deference in this area. 30 In Knauff v. Shaughnessy, the Attorney General excluded the alien-wife of a citizen and war veteran without a hearing or reasons for the decision. Knauff, 338 U.S. at 539, 70 S.Ct. 309. The Court stated: Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court ... to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien. Id. at 543, 70 S.Ct. 309 (citations omitted). 31 In Kwock Jan Fat v. White, the government tried to deport a person claiming citizenship, based on evidence produced in absentia and not recorded or released to the deportee. Kwock Jan Fat, 253 U.S. at 457, 40 S.Ct. 566. Not deferring to the government's interpretation of due process, or its reasons for limiting the process given, the Court reversed the order of deportation. Id. at 465, 40 S.Ct. 566. Fittingly, the Court warned of the danger of secret hearings, given the government's extraordinary power: 32 The acts of Congress give great power to the Secretary of Labor over Chinese immigrants and persons of Chinese descent. It is a power to be administered, not arbitrarily and secretly, but fairly and openly under the restraints of the tradition and principles of free government applicable where the fundamental rights of men are involved, regardless of their origin or race. 33 Id. at 464, 40 S.Ct. 566. Requiring this exacting, non-deferential review of the Fifth Amendment was important, because it was the province of the courts, in proceedings for review, to prevent abuse of [the government's] extraordinary power. Id. ; see also Wong Wing, 163 U.S. 228, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (finding that deportation procedures violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment); Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954) (Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process.) (citations omitted). 34 The difference between the Court's deferential review of non-substantive laws and procedures in Knauff and its exacting review in Kwock Jan Fat lies not in the fact that the former involved an exclusion proceeding and the latter a deportation proceeding; nor does it lie in the fact that Kwock Jan Fat was based on any added rights afforded citizens, as the Court discussed the power over both Chinese immigrants and persons of Chinese descent. Kwock Jan Fat, 253 U.S. at 464, 40 S.Ct. 566. Rather, the difference in the Court's review turned on the existence of a constitutional right. As a non-citizen seeking initial entry, Knauff was not a person entitled to due process within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, while Kwock Jan Fat was such a person, having been at least a resident. See also Ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. at 215, 73 S.Ct. 625 (excluding a non-citizen upon initial entry does not deprive him of any statutory or constitutional right). The premium placed on constitutional rights, not formalistic distinctions between exclusion and deportation proceedings, can further be shown by the fact that the Supreme Court has reversed exclusions of non-citizens where they had sufficient ties to the United States to give them standing to assert constitutional rights. 35 For example, in Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982), the Court held that a resident non-citizen, returning from a brief trip abroad, was entitled to due process, including a hearing regarding the charges underlying the attempt to exclude him. Id. at 33, 103 S.Ct. 321. While noting the sovereign's broad power to admit or exclude non-citizens, the Court stated that once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly. Id. at 32, 103 S.Ct. 321. Therefore, we are especially concerned with certain immigration procedures because constitutional rights are involved. 36 Additionally, in Landon, the Court implied that no uniquely deferential due process analysis applied in the immigration context. By applying law from a seminal non-immigration due process case, the Court suggested that it had determined the Fifth Amendment issue as it would have outside of the immigration context. See id. at 33, 103 S.Ct. 321 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 37 The Government, however, seizes upon the Supreme Court's statement in Knauff v. Shaughnessy regarding immigration laws that [e]xecutive officers may be entrusted with the duty of specifying the procedures for carrying out the congressional intent. Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543, 70 S.Ct. 309. This language, however, refers only to the ability of Congress to delegate such authority to the Executive. It does not determine whether the judiciary should give special deference to the procedures and mechanisms of deportation that either promulgates. 38 Similarly, the Government seizes upon the statement in Mathews v. Diaz that [i]n the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. 426 U.S. 67, 80, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976). Many of these differences were pointed out by both the majority and dissent in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 586 603-04 n. 10, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952) (noting that [t]he alien's right to travel temporarily outside the United States is subject to restrictions not applicable to citizens and pointing out that non-citizens may be deported for lawful actions. (Douglas, J., dissenting)). The Court in Diaz, however, never indicated that Congress could enact any rule it deemed appropriate. 39 Non-deferential review does not begin and end with the Fifth Amendment. As long ago as 1896, the Supreme Court recognized that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments limited Congress from enforcing its powers over immigration. In Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896), Congress had passed a statute requiring that any... Chinese person, or person of Chinese decent, convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States be imprisoned at hard labor for a period not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed from the United States. Id. at 233-34, 16 S.Ct. 977. The government argued that this law was enacted under its plenary power over immigration. Id. at 234, 16 S.Ct. 977. As such, trials of aliens under this section could be conducted by an administrative, summary hearing. Id. at 236, 16 S.Ct. 977. 8 40 While noting the broad powers enjoyed by the political branches to expel and exclude aliens, the Court held that such powers were limited by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation, unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. Id. at 237, 16 S.Ct. 977. 41 Although the question had never been addressed specifically, there is ample foundation to conclude that the Supreme Court would also recognize that non-citizens enjoy unrestrained First Amendment rights in deportation proceedings. For example, in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945), a non-citizen was deported because of his allegiance to the Communist Party. Id. at 137, 65 S.Ct. 1443. The Court invalidated the deportation on statutory grounds. Id. at 156-157, 65 S.Ct. 1443. A concurrence by Justice Murphy, however, noted that deportees had unqualified First Amendment rights in deportation hearings: 42 [O]nce an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all persons and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority. 43 Id. at 161, 65 S.Ct. 1443 (Murphy, J., concurring). This statement has since been adopted by the full court. See Hellenic Lines Ltd., 398 U.S. at 310 n. 5, 90 S.Ct. 1731 (1970); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (recognizing First Amendment restrictions on the political branches' authority over deportation). 44 Similarly, the Court seemed to acknowledge a First Amendment right in deportation hearings in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952). Like Bridges v. Wixon, the deportees in Harisiades were deported for their allegiance to the Communist Party, which Congress had found advocated government overthrow by force or violence. Harisiades, 342 U.S. at 584, 72 S.Ct. 512. While upholding the statutes and the deportations against a First Amendment challenge, the Court held that threat of violence and force was not protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 592, 72 S.Ct. 512 (noting that the First Amendment means freedom to advocate or promote Communism by means of the ballot box, but it does not include the practice or incitement of violence). Even while not finding a protected First Amendment right, the Court seemed to acknowledge that the First Amendment operated in deportation proceedings. 45 More support for independent, non-deferential review of non-substantive immigration laws can be found in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). Chadha involved a statute allowing a congressional veto over any decision by the Attorney General that allowed a deportable alien to remain in the United States. The Court held that the law violated the Presentment Clause. See id. at 959, 103 S.Ct. 2764. The government, in part, argued that they were entitled to deference due to their plenary power over immigration. The Court, however, stated: 46 The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I § 8, cl. 4, is not open to question, but what is challenged here is whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power. As we made clear in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976): Congress has plenary authority in all cases in which it has substantive legislative jurisdiction... so long as the exercise of that authority does not offend some other constitutional restriction. 47 Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41, 103 S.Ct. 2764. 48 More recently, the Supreme Court has again applied non-deferential review to non-substantive immigration law. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001), two non-citizens were being held indefinitely beyond the normal statutory-removal period of ninety days, because no country would accept them. A post-removal-period statute authorized such detention. The issue, however, was whether the post-removal statute authorized a detention indefinitely, or for a period reasonably necessary to secure removal. The language of the statute set no such limit. The Court read an implicit reasonableness limit into the statute to avoid serious constitutional problems. Id. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Significantly, the Court dismissed the government's argument that Congress's plenary power to create immigration law required deference to the political branches' decision-making. Id. at 699-700, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Court repeated the mantra that the plenary power was subject to important constitutional limitations. Id. at 695, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (citing INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 941-942, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068 (1889)). 49 The Government correctly notes that the Court in Zadvydas twice indicated that it might be deferential in situations involving terrorism. See id. at 691, 696, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (noting that [t]he provision authorizing detention does not apply narrowly to `a small segment of particularly dangerous individuals,' say suspected terrorists, but broadly to aliens ordered removed for many and various reasons, including tourist visa violations, and noting that Neither do we consider terrorism or other special circumstances where special arguments might be made for forms of preventative detention and for heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to matters of national security.). However, nothing in Zadvydas indicates that given such a situation, the Court would defer to the political branches' determination of who belongs in that small segment of particularly dangerous individuals without judicial review of the individual circumstances of each case, 9 something that the Creppy directive strikingly lacks. The Court repeated the importance of strong procedural protections when constitutional rights were involved: [T]he Constitution may well preclude granting `an administrative body the unreviewable authority to make determinations implicating fundamental rights.' See id. at 692, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (quoting Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (O'Connor, J.)). 50 Importantly, the Creppy directive does not apply to a small segment of particularly dangerous information, but a broad, indiscriminate range of information, including information likely to be entirely innocuous. Similarly, no definable standards used to determine whether a case is of special interest have been articulated. Nothing in the Creppy directive counsels that it is limited to a small segment of particularly dangerous individuals. In fact, the Government so much as argues that certain non-citizens known to have no links to terrorism will be designated special interest cases. Supposedly, closing a more targeted class would allow terrorists to draw inferences from which hearings are open and which are closed. 51 While we sympathize and share the Government's fear that dangerous information might be disclosed in some of these hearings, we feel that the ordinary process of determining whether closure is warranted on a case-by-case basis sufficiently addresses their concerns. Using this stricter standard does not mean that information helpful to terrorists will be disclosed, only that the Government must be more targeted and precise in its approach. Given the importance of the constitutional rights involved, such safeguards must be vigorously guarded, lest the First Amendment turn into another balancing test. In the words of Justice Black: 52 The word `security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. 53 New York Times, 403 U.S. at 719, 91 S.Ct. 2140 (Black, J., concurring). 54 The Government cites other cases that it claims support its view that even procedural immigration laws are entitled to a deferential standard of review. However, those cases involve either substantive immigrations laws determining who gets deported, see Almario v. Attorney General, 872 F.2d 147 (6th Cir.1989) (requiring deportation of persons married during their deportation proceedings), or non-substantive immigration laws where no constitutional right was recognized. See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (finding that the authority of the Executive to determine whether, and on what terms, a detained non-citizen should be released pending a hearing implicates no fundamental right or other Constitutional protection). Here, however, we are faced with a strictly non-substantive regulation that could impact greatly upon a First Amendment right. 55 Other courts of appeals have similarly held that courts may review immigration procedures with greater scrutiny than substantive immigration decisions or laws. See Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247, 1257-58 (10th Cir.2002); Zamora-Garcia v. INS, 737 F.2d 488, 490-92 (5th Cir.1984); see also Rodriguez-Reyes v. INS, 983 F.2d 1068 (6th Cir.1993) (per curiam). 56
57 Finally, the Government argues that this distinction between substantive and non-substantive immigration laws fails to acknowledge that procedural requirements often reflect, and encompass, substantive choices and that it makes no sense. See Gov't Brief at 25. This contention strikes us as profoundly undemocratic in that it ignores the basic concept of checks and balances. More fundamentally, though, were the political branches' decisions not subject to certain basic procedural requirements, the government could act arbitrarily and behind closed doors, leaving unsettled the lives of thousands of immigrants. Even though the political branches may have unfettered discretion to deport and exclude certain people, requiring the Government to account for their choices assures an informed public — a foundational principle of democracy. 58 Undoubtedly, however, where a constitutional right is not implicated, the political branches retain unfettered discretion to determine both substantive and non-substantive immigration policy and laws. See, e.g., Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954) (finding that the Ex Post Facto Clause, applying only to criminal cases, does not apply in deportation cases, being civil in nature). The Creppy directive, however, is strictly non-substantive, and if a First Amendment right of access exists, the Government must show that it is a narrowly tailored means of advancing a compelling interest. See Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613.