Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Respondent Jagdish Rai Chadha was born in the British colony of Kenya to Indian parents.

After his non-immigrant student visa expired in 1972, none of the three countries would accept him onto their territory, rendering him de facto stateless.

Chadha sought to suspend his deportation, and the INS accommodated his request according to § 244(a)(1), and transmitted a report of the suspension to Congress according to § 244(c)(2).

In an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, the court held that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding.

Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.

(3) The action is a genuine case with adequate representation in favor of sustaining the act provided by the houses of Congress as amici curiae.

(6) The presentment process—especially the President's veto power—was intended by the Framers to provide a mechanism by which the executive branch could defend itself against legislative encroachment and could prevent ill-conceived policies.

(7) Similarly, the bicameralism requirement was formulated in order to hinder congressional action and thereby prevent legislative encroachment.

The Constitution specifically attempted to prevent this form of aggrandizement in the Bill of Attainder Clause, Art.

In this case, the deportation of Chadha is the status quo situation, and the veto by House of Representatives of an alternative suggestion of the executive branch is reasonable given the purposes of bicameralism and the Presentment Clause.

Joint resolutions have proven difficult to pass over a veto, and in cases where that process was chosen the power of the President has increased greatly.

[4][5] In 1984, then-Delaware senator and future President Joe Biden who served as the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a scholarly article in Syracuse Law Review appraising the impact of the Supreme Court decision on how the government works.