INS v. St. Cyr

Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 · Federal Courts

533 U.S. 289 (2001)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtshabeasjurisdiction stripping§ 2241habeas corpusimmigrationAEDPAIIRIRA

Facts

St. Cyr, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1986, pleaded guilty in March 1996 in state court to selling a controlled substance. At the time of his plea, pre-AEDPA law would have made him eligible to seek a discretionary waiver of deportation under § 212(c). Removal proceedings were not initiated until April 1997, after AEDPA and IIRIRA became effective, and the Attorney General took the position that those statutes eliminated any power to grant him such relief. St. Cyr then sought habeas relief, arguing that the 1996 restrictions did not apply to aliens who pleaded guilty before enactment.

Issue

First, whether AEDPA and IIRIRA stripped federal district courts of habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to decide a pure question of law concerning an alien's eligibility for discretionary relief from removal. Second, whether IIRIRA's repeal of § 212(c) relief applies to an alien who pleaded guilty to a deportable offense before the statute's effective date, when such a plea would not then have barred eligibility for that relief.

Rule

Congress must make a clear, unambiguous, and express statement to repeal habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; references to 'judicial review' or jurisdiction to review, without more, are insufficient where eliminating habeas would raise serious constitutional questions and no adequate substitute forum is clearly provided. Under Landgraf, an ambiguous statute will not be applied retroactively; if Congress has not clearly directed retroactive application, a court asks whether the statute attaches new legal consequences to completed events in light of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Petrov, a lawful permanent resident in Ohio, is ordered removed after an agency ruling that a 1995 guilty plea makes her categorically ineligible for a form of discretionary relief that existed when she pleaded. She files a § 2241 petition in federal district court raising only the legal question whether later immigration amendments eliminated her eligibility. The government points to a statute saying that "judicial review of final removal orders shall be available only in the court of appeals" and argues that district court habeas jurisdiction is gone.

How should the district court rule on its jurisdiction?

Explanation. The majority required a clear, unambiguous, and express statement before Congress will be read to repeal § 2241 habeas jurisdiction. Statutory references to "judicial review" or "jurisdiction to review" are insufficient by themselves, especially where the petition raises a pure question of law and reading the statute to foreclose any forum would raise serious constitutional concerns. Thus the district court keeps § 2241 jurisdiction.