# Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca > Supreme Court of the United States · March 9, 1987 · 480 U.S. 421 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430881 ## Case - **Full name:** Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 9, 1987 - **Citations:** 480 U.S. 421; 55 U.S.L.W. 4313; 107 S. Ct. 1207; 94 L. Ed. 2d 434; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1059 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Powell, Rehnquist, White - **Cited by:** 3,802 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430881 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1988) “clear probability standard of proof did not govern asylum applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1988) stated “that so long as an objective situation is established by the evidence, it need not be shown that the situation will probab… - recognizing that there “is simply no room in the United Nations’ def- inition [of the term “refugee,” which essentially is the same as the Immigra- tion and Naturalization Act definition] for concluding that because an applicant only has a 10% chance of being . . . persecuted,… - stating that refugees “who can show a clear probability of persecution are entitled to mandatory suspension of deportation and eligible for discretionary asylum,” and refugees “who can only show a well-founded fear of persecution are not entitled to anything, but are eligible … - stating that whether two statutory standards are identical "is a pure question of statutory construction for the courts to decide ... quite different from the question of interpretation that arises in each case in which the agency is required to apply either or both standards … - holding that in order to show a well-founded fear of persecution, the standard applicable to asylum claims, the petitioner need not demonstrate that he more-likely-than-not would be persecuted upon return to the country in question, the standard applicable to withholding of re… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that the plain meaning of “well-founded fear” and the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) clearly demonstrate that the “well-founded fear” standard and the “clear probability” standard are not equivalent. I concur in the judgment rather than join the Court’s opinion, however, for two reasons. First, despite having reached the above conclusion, the Court undertakes an exhaustive investigation of the legislative history of the Act. Ante, at 432-443. It attempts to justify this inquiry by relying upon the doctrine that if the legislative history of an enactment reveals a “ ‘clearly expressed legislative intention’ contrary to [the enactment’s] language,” the Court is required to “question the strong presumption that Congress expresses its intent through the language it chooses.” Ante, at 432, n. 12. Although it is true that the Court in recent times has expressed approval of this doctrine, that is to my mind an ill-advised deviation from the venerable principle that if the language of a statute is clear, that language must be given effect — at least in the absence of a patent absurdity. See, e. g., United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95-96 (1820) (opinion of Marshall, C. J.); United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385 (1868); Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger, 157 U. S. 1, 34 (1895) (opinion of Harlan, J.); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917); Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485, 492 (1947) (opinion of Jackson, J.); United States v. Sullivan, 332 U. S. 689, 693 (1948) (opinion of Black, J.); Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 59, 64 (1953) (opinion of Douglas, J.). Judges interpret laws rather than reconstruct *453 legislators’ intentions. Where the language of those laws is clear, we are not free to replace it with an unenacted legislative intent. Even by its own lights, however, the Court’s explication of the legislative history of the Act is excessive. The INS makes a number of specific arguments based upon the legislative history of the Act. It would have sufficed, it seems to me, for the Court to determine whether these specific arguments establish a “clearly expressed legislative intent” that the two standards be equivalent. I think it obvious that they do not, as apparently does the Court. That being so, there is simply no need for the lengthy effort to ascertain the import of the entire legislative history. And that effort is objectionable not only because it is gratuitous. I am concerned that it will be interpreted to suggest that similarly exhaustive analyses are generally appropriate (or, worse yet, required) in cases where the language of the enactment at issue is clear. I also fear that in this case the Court’s conduct of that inquiry will be interpreted as a betrayal of its assurance that it does “not attempt to set forth a detailed description of how the well-founded fear test should be applied,” ante, at 448. See, e. g., ante, at 438-440 (appearing to endorse a particular interpretation of “well-founded fear”). I am far more troubled, however, by the Court’s discussion of the question whether the INS’s interpretation of “well-founded fear” is entitled to deference. Since the Court quite rightly concludes that the INS’s interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the plain meaning of that phrase and the structure of the Act, see ante, at 431-432, 449, and n. 12, there is simply no need and thus no justification for a discussion of whether the interpretation is entitled to deference. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984) (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” (footnote omitted)). Even more *454 unjustifiable, however, is the Court’s use of this superfluous discussion as the occasion to express controversial, and I believe erroneous, views on the meaning of this Court’s decision in Chevron. Chevron stated that where there is no “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” id., at 843 , “a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency,” id., at 844 . This Court has consistently interpreted Chevron — which has been an extremely important and frequently cited opinion, not only in this Court but in the Courts of Appeals — as holding that courts must give effect to a reasonable agency interpretation of a statute unless that interpretation is inconsistent with a clearly expressed congressional intent. See, e. g., Japan Whaling Assn. v. American Cetacean Soc., 478 U. S. 221, 233-234 (1986); United States v. Fulton, 475 U. S. 657, 666-667 (1986); Hillsborough County, Florida v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 714 (1985); Chemical Manufacturers Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U. S. 116, 125, 126 (1985). The Court’s discussion is flatly inconsistent with this well-established interpretation. The Court first implies that courts may substitute their interpretation of a statute for that of an agency whenever, “[ejmploying traditional tools of statutory construction,” they are able to reach a conclusion as to the proper interpretation of the statute. Ante, at 446. But this approach would make deference a doctrine of desperation, authorizing courts to defer only if they would otherwise be unable to construe the enactment at issue. This is not an interpretation but an evisceration of Chevron. The Court also implies that courts may substitute their interpretation of a statute for that of an agency whenever they face “a pure question of statutory construction for the courts to decide,” ante, at 446, rather than a “question of interpretation [in which] the agency is required to apply [a legal standard] to a particular set of facts,” ante, at 448. *455 No support is adduced for this proposition, which is contradicted by the case the Court purports to be interpreting, since in Chevron the Court deferred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s abstract interpretation of the phrase “stationary source.” In my view, the Court badly misinterprets Chevron. More fundamentally, however, I neither share nor understand the Court’s eagerness to refashion important principles of administrative law in a case in which such questions are completely unnecessary to the decision and have not been fully briefed by the parties. I concur in the judgment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430881. Public record. Not legal advice.