Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 1952; as amended)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The INA consolidated earlier immigration laws into a single framework, defining rules for immigration, naturalization, deportation, and asylum. It replaced the patchwork of 19th–early 20th century laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Acts and national origins quotas.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before the INA, immigration law was governed by multiple acts (e.g., Immigration Act of 1924) that imposed discriminatory quotas. The INA unified and modernized U.S. immigration law.

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.

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, 1986)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (8 U.S.C. § 1324a et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The IRCA was passed to address concerns about unauthorized immigration. It combined stronger enforcement with a legalization program, attempting to balance border security with humanitarian relief.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before IRCA, there were no federal penalties for employers hiring unauthorized immigrants. IRCA introduced employer sanctions while providing a path to legal status for many undocumented residents.

Immigration – Timeline of Key Acts

Modern U.S. immigration law was reshaped in the late 20th century by two landmark statutes. Together, they defined today’s framework for legalization, employer sanctions, enforcement, and deportation.

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA, 1986)

• Legalized approximately 3 million undocumented immigrants meeting residency and work criteria.
• Prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers.
• Introduced the I-9 employment verification system, later expanded into E-Verify.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA, 1996)

• Expanded deportation/removal grounds and introduced expedited removal procedures.
• Imposed 3-year, 10-year, and permanent reentry bars for unlawful presence.
• Created the 287(g) program, allowing state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
• Mandated detention for broad categories of immigrants.

Why It Matters Today

These laws:

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA, 1996)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (8 U.S.C.)

2) Why It Was Done
IIRIRA was passed to tighten immigration enforcement in response to growing concerns about unauthorized immigration. It expanded deportation grounds, restricted judicial review, and introduced new barriers to legal status.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
IRCA (1986) introduced employer sanctions and legalization but did not stop unauthorized immigration. IIRIRA built on IRCA’s framework by greatly expanding federal enforcement power, often clashing with due process and constitutional protections.

Homeland Security Act (2002)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Passed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Act created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate national efforts against terrorism, improve border security, and streamline emergency response.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 2002, counterterrorism and homeland security functions were spread across multiple agencies (FBI, INS, Customs, FEMA, Coast Guard). The Act consolidated them into a single Cabinet-level department.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
President Trump issued a proclamation restricting entry into the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim countries. Opponents argued it violated the Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5–4, ruling it was within the President’s authority over immigration and national security. In doing so, the Court explicitly disavowed Korematsu v. United States (1944) as wrongly decided.