The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month in the case American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno. This is the first of what may be a series of cases the Court is expected to hear relating to "court stripping" provisions in the 1996 Immigration Act. Just this week, the INS asked to the Supreme Court to review the Goncalves and Magana-Pizano cases which cover similar issues.

The AAADC case began eleven years ago when the INS began deportation proceedings against eight Palestinian men on account of their political activities. The men were charged with raising funds for a known terrorist group. The individuals fought the INS in Federal District Court in California and were successful. They again beat the INS when the case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But in 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under the 1996 law, Congress attempted to curtail the appeals process in deportation cases. IIRAIRA contains a provision that states

"No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings" to remove an alien.

Only after a final deportation has been issued can an alien seek a review in a federal appeals court.

The "L.A. Eight" are arguing that they had the right to seek immediate access to the courts because their free speech rights were being violated. The US government argued that the men and women must wait until the end of the conventional deportation process before trying to show the government singled them out for their political opinions.

Lawyers for the L.A. Eight took the position that free speech arguments based on the Constitution's First Amendment should not have to wait until the lengthy, expensive deportation process is over.

Proponents of the 1996 Immigration Act argue that the US needs such laws to protect the nation against terrorists.

The Supreme Court Justices appeared to have mixed views on the matter. Some Justices seemed to be looking for a way to allow aliens to make constitutional arguments. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for example, told the government's lawyer "If no review is available of these constitutional claims, it might influence our interpretation of the statute." Justice Antonin Scalia, however, did not appear to be impressed by the Constitutional arguments: "It's clear that these amendments were intended to prevent exactly what's happening here. Everybody knows this is the name of the game: String it out, and the longer it's strung out, the less likely deportation will be."

The case was argued by American Immigration Lawyers Association member Marc Van Der Hout and Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole.