Spector v. Norweigian Cruise Line – SCOTUS – 2005 (310) – interpret acts of Congress to AVOID CONFLICT with earlier treaty provisions
Title III might require removal of access barriers. Court said – can’t require those removals if it would bring vessel into noncompliance with Int’l Convention for Safety of Life at Sea
Garcia-Mir v. Meese – 11th Cir. – 1986 (311-12) 1980 – Mariel Cuban boatlift. Group One – guilty of crimes in Cuba, or deemed mentally incompetent, and denied parole. Group Two – granted parole, but REVOKED. Detained all of them.
Congress has broad constitutional authority to refuse to admit certain classes of aliens. But usually have right to hearing to determine inadmissibility. Executive branch has authority to grant parole, pending hearing on removal.
What happens if EXECUTIVE acts in violation of int’l law?
Held that statute doesn’t RESTRICT executive power to detain aliens indefinitely. But has there been AFFIRMATIVE legislative grant of authority to detain?
First group – yes, sufficient evidence.
Second group – NO affirmative legislative grant.
Controlling executive act?
Trial court – Attorney General’s termination of status review plan/decision to incarcerate indefinitely
Try to challenge – Paqute Habana – controlling executive act can only be PRESIDENT, not subordinates. Court says that’s incorrect summary of Paquete.
Constitution provides for executive departments – executive act IS SUFFICENT for affirming trial court’s finding that int’l law DOES NOT CONTROL.