Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado

PETITIONER: Immigration and Naturalization Service
RESPONDENT: Delgado
LOCATION: Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida - Dade County

DOCKET NO.: 82-1271
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 466 US 210 (1984)
ARGUED: Jan 11, 1984
DECIDED: Apr 17, 1984

ADVOCATES:
Mr. Andrew L. Frey - on behalf of the Petitioner
Henry R. Fenton - on behalf of Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1984 in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Frey, I think you may proceed when you're ready.

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

This case is a suit by four individuals... two citizens of the United States and two aliens lawfully present in the United States... for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the lawfulness of the manner in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted factory surveys at two garment factories in southern California in which the Respondents were employed.

The importance of these factory surveys to the INS' responsibility to attempt to apprehend and deport aliens illegally present in the United States is difficult to overstate.

The record shows that in Los Angeles in 1977 20,000 illegal aliens were apprehended in the course of such surveys, and the Immigration Service has told us that away from the border at the time prior to the decision in this case approximately 60 percent of all apprehensions of illegal aliens occurred in the course of factory surveys.

Now some years ago the factory surveys became during the 1970s a more important tool to the INS for several reasons.

One was a matter of values.

Previously a lot of the enforcement efforts had been concentrated in residential investigations of areas where there were believed to be high concentrations of illegal aliens living, and it was thought that it would be far less intrusive, it would raise fewer Fourth Amendment problems, it would be less intrusive in privacy values for the agency to concentrate on the workplace rather than in residential areas.

Secondly, it was believed... and I think quite plainly accurately... that this was a more effective utilization of the resources of the Service, because a relatively small number of agents were able to make relatively substantial numbers of apprehensions.

And, thirdly, it was deemed appropriate because the prospect of employment is the principal magnet that draws people to attempt to enter the country illegally and work force surveys and enforcement efforts concentrated on the work force seem correlative to the factors that have drawn the people here.

Sandra Day O'Connor:

Mr. Frey, may I ask you a preliminary question?

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

Certainly.

Sandra Day O'Connor:

And that relates to whether the Plaintiffs here in the case below had standing under the Lyons decision of this Court last time.

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

Yes, I believe that they do.

We don't challenge their standing.

Sandra Day O'Connor:

I know you don't, but why not?

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

Well, the reason I think they do is that these work place surveys are recurrent and at garment factories where these individuals were employed it is likely that there will be, and in fact at Davis Pleating Company there were two surveys during the year in question.

Sandra Day O'Connor:

And is that likely to be repeated in the future, assuming the practice?

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

It is likely to be repeated if the Ninth Circuit's decision is reversed.

The consequences of the Ninth Circuit's decision, while factory surveys are still being done, they are very difficult to do at large facilities like Davis Pleating because the restrictions would make it too chaotic, and I'll get to that shortly.

Now I'd like to briefly describe these surveys.

First, the first point that I think is significant is that they are not done randomly but they are based on investigations which lead to the acquisition of information that a substantial number of illegal aliens are employed at the particular target factory.

And indeed the results of the surveys that we have before us in this case indicate this.

The first Davis survey--

Byron R. White:

Is there something in the record about that... about the fact that these aren't just random?

Is there some testimony or anything?

Mr. Andrew L. Frey:

--Well, I think there is, yes.

I think there is an affidavit from one of the INS directors, I believe, that suggest that.

Logic would dictate that it would make no sense for them to go about randomly.

They have very limited resources in terms of personnel to do these things, and they obviously want to utilize them in the most effective way where they can arrest the largest number of people with the smallest number of agents.