In United States v. Sparks, 687 F.Supp. 1145 (E.D. Mich. 1988), the court held that the separation of powers doctrine could be violated in two ways: (1) when one branch prevents and interferes with another branch’s fulfillment of its constitutionally assigned function; or (2) when one branch assumes power which is constitutionally allocated to another branch.
In immigration today, determining the scope of the executive branch’s preemptive power presents one of the most pressing questions because the great bulk of current immigration policymaking stems not from congress, but rather from executive branch agencies and state. Presidents and …show more content…
state governments have thus stepped in. And as these bodies of regulation continue to expand, conflicts between executive authority and state laws become inevitable.
The Chinese Exclusion Case (Sup.Ct.1889) was the first case to hold that the federal power to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration is a matter of vital national concern. Furthermore, it is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the Court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government.
Article III of the Constitution left it to the discretion of Congress to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts to conduct the judicial business of the federal government.
Courts established pursuant to Article III are defined by three constitutional provisions: resolution of cases that only present live cases, lifetime tenure, and salary protection. These safeguards insulate the federal judiciary from improper influence. Here, Congress created a special court, the Islamic Immigrant court, to adjudicate the immigration status of U.S. residents who are citizens of predominantly Muslim countries. The IIC’s primary job is to determine whether Islamic non-citizens may lawfully remain in the United States. However, in this case the judges appointed by President grump are not subject to the Article III protections. Making the IIC more like an Article I tribunals in which judges do not enjoy life tenure, and Congress may reduce their
salaries. The facts in this case show Congress delegating to an administrative body many types of power including legislative, executive, and judicial powers. However, the exercise of some authority, discretion, or judgment incident or necessary to the performance of administrative duties is subject to judicial review. As such, judicial review is not a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Congress may control the execution of its enactment indirectly by passing new legislation. The Separation of powers doctrine is violated when Congress tries to control the execution of its enactment directly. So although Congress is able to delegate its powers to administrative agencies, Congress may not constitutionally control the administration of the laws by way of a congressional veto. Ins. v. Chadha, 77 L. Ed. 2d 317, 349 (1983).