INS v. Chadha (1983)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Congress had given itself a one-house legislative veto over the Attorney General’s decision to suspend Chadha’s deportation. The Supreme Court struck that mechanism down, holding that legislative actions must comply with bicameralism and presentment (pass both houses and be presented to the President).

3) Why It Mattered
It invalidated hundreds of statutory provisions using legislative vetoes, reshaping how Congress oversees executive agencies and reinforcing constitutional lawmaking procedures.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A clear rule that Congress must follow Article I procedures for legislative acts.
• Took Away: Congress’s shortcut of using a one-house (or concurrent) veto to control executive decisions.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Firm but faithful enforcement of constitutional structure: the Court required Congress to use proper lawmaking channels rather than ad-hoc vetoes.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Congress can’t just pass a quick resolution to overturn executive actions unless it goes through both houses and the President—or overrides a veto—like any other law.

• Separation of Powers
• Presentment Clause
• Bicameralism
• Immigration