Case brief, IMS v. Chadha (1983)
write a law case brief according to the attached instructions and examples IMS v. Chadha (1983)
How to Brief a CaseI. Briefing Cases A. What I want in your briefs
Your name, course number, and date at the top right of the page
Name of case, year of decision, court making the decision (almost always the US Supreme Court), and the names of the parties involved in the case
Facts
• Very briefly explain the background to the case. What circumstances occurred that gave rise to the conflict currently before the court? Be as brief and concise as possible. All you need here is the basic information to understand the conflict and why it is being appealed to the court.
Statutory Provision
• Most of these cases will involve a legal challenge to a specific law or act that has been passed by Congress or a state legislature. If so,
please provide that information here. Sometimes, there will be no clear statute involved. If that instance, this will be left blank.
Constitutional Provision
• What section of the Constitution is involved? The Court will almost always tell you this in their opinion.
Legal Question
• Usually this is determined by the conflict between the statute and the section of the Constitution involved. Specifically, what is the legal
issue that the Court is being asked to resolve?
• In order of priority, this is the third most important section of your briefs.
Reasoning
• In this section, you should explain the Court’s answer to the Legal Question, in your own words. Explain what the Court said as concisely as possible. The purpose of briefing cases is to better understand the Court’s decision and to have a more manageable source to study for the exams. Putting the reasoning of the Court into terminology and language that you understand more easily will help you understand the case and will help you study for exams.
• Do not simply copy long sections of the case in your brief. That does not demonstrate that you understand the case. Put it in your own
words.
• This is the most important section of your briefs and you should spend most of your time on this section
Outcome
• Who won? What was the specific factual outcome? Ex: “The Texas Flag Burning Statute was overturned.”
Doctrine/Standard/Rule
• Think of this as the “take away.” Think of this as telling me why we we care about this case in one sentence. What specific doctrine or tests were set down (e.g., Clear and Present Danger Test; Valid Secular Policy Test)? This is the precedent of the case. This is - if you forget everything else - the part of the case you should remember.
• After the Reasoning, this is the most important section of the
brief.
B. Some tips:
• Many times the Court explains the Legal Question in the opinion, so look for the Court to define the question as you read the
• Then look for where the Court says: “This is what the rule should be,” This is what we decide,” “Here are the reasons....” These are just examples, and you will not always find them, but just look for specific things that make it clear why the Court has ruled in a certain manner.
• The Doctrine/Standard/Rule is probably the most difficult section of your briefs. Look for broad statements about what the Court says about how future courts ought to rule in this area of law.
• Your briefs should be 1 - 2 pages long.
Case brief, IMS v. Chacha (1983)
Insert name:
Institution affiliation:
Due date:
Case: IMS v. Chadha
Course: 443 U.S 743
Date: 1983
Facts:
Chadha, who was an alien from India, was legally admitted in United States as a student to pursue his studies. However, after one and a half years, his visa expired before completing his studies. He was required to justify why he should not be deported while his visa has expired. He issued an application to continue staying in U.S; he claimed that if deported he would suffer hardship. The immigration judge (working under the authority of the attorney general) cancelled his deportation because he foreseen that the alien would suffer hardship. The House of the Representatives developed a resolution that nullified this decision, and therefore ordering Chacha to be deported.
Statutory provision:
The Court of Appeal identified that the provision of the House of Representatives was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers.
Constitutional provision:
Immigration and nationality Act
Article I, section 7, clause 3.
Legal question:
Whether the House of the Representatives had constitutional powers to give directives for Chacha’s deportation contrary to executive decisions allowing him to continue stay in U.S?
Reasoning:
Under the section of nationality and immigration Act, congress gave one chamber of congress to suspend or invalidate the deportation rulings of the INS (the immigration and naturalization service) and the U.S attorney general.
The congress believed that they had the power to conduct a legislative veto over the decisions made by the executive branch. The congress allowed either the senate or the house can make a ruling.
Since, Chacha’s visa had expired; the immigration judge suspended his deportation. However, the House of Representatives overruled decision of the immigration judge.
The INS appealed for an injunction because it contended that the immigration of nationally bill acted contrary to the se...