REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. ABOUREZK et al.
No. 86-656.
Argued October 5, 1987
Decided October 19, 1987
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Roger Clegg, Michael Jay Singer, and Abraham D. Sofaer.
Steven R. Shapiro argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Arthur N. Eisenberg, John A. Powell, Charles S. Sims, Peter L. Zimroth, Michael D. Young, and Leonard Boudin
Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Bar Association by Eugene C. Thomas, William A. Bradford, Jr., and David W. Burgett; for the Committee on Immigration and Nationality Law of the New York City Bar Association et al. by Robert M. Kaufman, Carl R. Baldwin, and Steven M. Freeman; for the International Human Rights Law Group by Eli Whitney Debevoise II and Kimberly Till; and for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights et al. by Arthur C. Helton.
Ann H. Franke and Jacqueline W. Mintz filed a brief for the American Association of University Professors et al. as amici curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Blackmun took no part in the decision of this case. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.