## Facts

- Mario Ruiz Massieu, a Mexican citizen and former senior Mexican official, entered the United States lawfully and remained in lawful status.
- Mexico requested Massieu’s extradition on criminal allegations tied to high-profile political events in Mexico.
- The United States pursued extradition in four separate proceedings before two federal magistrate judges but failed each time to establish probable cause.
- After the unsuccessful extradition attempts, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrested Massieu and initiated deportation proceedings by serving an Order to Show Cause.
- The INS charged Massieu under INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4)(C)(i) (as then in force), which authorized deportation when the Secretary of State has reason to believe an alien’s “presence or activities” would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.
- The Secretary of State’s submission relied on Mexico’s allegations and asserted adverse foreign-policy consequences if Massieu remained in the United States; the charge was not based on proven conduct meeting ordinary deportability grounds.
- Massieu filed a federal action seeking a declaration that § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) was unconstitutional and a permanent injunction barring his deportation under that provision.
- Massieu argued, among other things, that the statute was void for vagueness, denied due process by making the Secretary of State’s determination effectively conclusive, and was being used to accomplish what extradition proceedings could not; he also asserted First Amendment concerns based on his political speech.
- The government moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because review belonged in the immigration process, Massieu had not exhausted administrative remedies, the matter posed a political question involving foreign policy, and the court should avoid the constitutional questions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a pre-removal constitutional challenge to INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i), or whether jurisdiction was barred by the INA’s review scheme, exhaustion requirements, the political question doctrine, or the canon of constitutional avoidance.
2. Whether INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) violates due process because it is impermissibly vague and fails to provide a meaningful opportunity to contest deportation based on an undefined foreign-policy judgment.
3. Whether INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) violates separation of powers by delegating to the Secretary of State standardless power to order deportation of lawfully present aliens based on foreign-policy concerns.

## Decision

- The court held it had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider the facial constitutional challenge and request for injunctive relief.
- The court rejected the government’s political question argument, reasoning that evaluating the constitutionality of a domestic statute is a judicial function even when the statute relates to foreign affairs.
- The court concluded that exhaustion and the INA’s review provisions did not bar the suit at this stage because Massieu challenged the validity of the statute authorizing the proceeding, not merely the outcome of a final deportation order.
- The court held INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because the statutory standard (“potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”) was too indeterminate to provide meaningful notice or constrain enforcement, and it left the targeted alien without a meaningful chance to contest the basis for deportation.
- The court also held the statute unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine because it conferred essentially unfettered discretion on the Secretary of State without an intelligible limiting standard.
- The court entered declaratory relief and permanently enjoined the government from proceeding to deport Massieu under § 241(a)(4)(C)(i).

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may decide constitutional challenges to federal statutes even where the statute operates in an area touching foreign relations, so long as the court is not asked to decide the wisdom of diplomatic choices.
- A statute is void for vagueness under due process when it lacks sufficiently definite standards to give fair notice and to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, especially where the consequence is severe, such as deportation.
- Due process protections apply to lawfully present noncitizens; when the government seeks to remove a person from the country, the legal framework must allow a meaningful opportunity to contest the asserted basis for removal.
- Congress may not transfer legislative power to the Executive without an intelligible principle that channels discretion; a removal scheme that turns on a single official’s largely unreviewable determination, without workable standards, raises separation-of-powers concerns.

## Conclusion

The district court held that INA § 241(a)(4)(C)(i) authorized deportation on an undefined and effectively conclusive foreign-policy determination, making it impermissibly vague and an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and it permanently enjoined the government from deporting Mario Ruiz Massieu under that provision (a ruling later reversed on jurisdictional grounds by the Third Circuit).


Massieu v. Reno, 915 F. Supp. 681 (1996)