Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr
- Decided
- June 25, 2001
- Docket
- 00-767
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,984 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, abrogated on other grounds (12 of 30 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Hogans v. Charter Communications, Inc.
What later courts said
- holding that the repeal of a statute "cannot be sufficient to eliminate what it did not originally grant" — Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales (2007)
- recognizing that Congress has the power to enact retroactive legislation, but confirming that there are constitutional limits on retroactivity — Margarita Garcia-Ramirez v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General (2005)
- holding that denying such aliens the opportunity to pursue § 1182(c) relief would give the IIRIRA an impermissible retroactive effect — Debeatham v. Holder (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
Both the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), enacted on April 24,1996, 110 Stat. 1214, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-546, contain comprehensive amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. This case raises two important questions about the impact of those amendments. The first question is a procedural one, concerning the effect of those amendments on the availability of habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §2241. The second question is a • substantive one, concerning the impact of the amendments on conduct that occurred before [*293] their enactment and on the availability of discretionary relief from deportation.
Respondent, Enrico St. Cyr, is a citizen of Haiti who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1986. Ten years later, on March 8, 1996, he pleaded guilty in a state court to a charge of selling a controlled substance in violation of Connecticut law. That conviction made him deportable. Under pre-AEDPA law applicable at the time of his conviction, St. Cyr would have been eligible for a waiver of deportation at the discretion of the Attorney General. However, removal proceedings against him were not commenced until April 10, 1997, after both AEDPA and IIRIRA became effective, and, as the Attorney General interprets those statutes, he no longer has discretion to grant such a waiver.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.