The Plenary Power Doctrine is a central and integral feature of Supreme Court immigration jurisprudence (all subject matter of law, study of law, and legal issues) since the late 19th century. The doctrine grants the legislative and executive branches broad authority to regulate immigration. Furthermore, the doctrine holds that, in general, courts should not interfere in immigration cases.
The Plenary Power Doctrine grants Congress and the President the power to make policy free from judicial review. It is based on the assumption that everything related to immigration is a matter of national sovereignty related to the right of a nation to define its own borders.
During the Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889, the Plenary Doctrine of Power was first articulated. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a statute that prohibited Chinese workers from entering the United States. It did not subject the law in question to any substantive constitutional analysis.
This doctrine protects a variety of immigration provisions from constitutional scrutiny. As a result, in Matthews v. Diaz (1976), “in the exercise of its broad powers over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly enacts rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”
Fortunately, the doctrine has not gone unnoticed. It has been challenged over the years by a variety of people, including academics, other judges, and immigrant rights advocates. Despite their efforts, the Supreme Court has not formally rejected the doctrine.
During arguments before the Supreme Court and other district courts, government representatives frequently rely on doctrine when defending or arguing for a law that is under attack on constitutional grounds.
In addition to being seen as having plenary powers in the areas of immigration, Congress is generally viewed as having plenary powers in the area of trade and its regulation. While no one has officially recognized the limits of Congress’s plenary power with regard to immigration, there have been successful challenges to the idea when it comes to trade. As a result, Congress’s powers over commerce are no longer comprehensive and do not cover all issues.
Due to the complicated nature of immigration law, it is rarely a good idea for people to try to make their case on their own. Immigrants facing criminal charges need representation the most.
