Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

AADC: Section 1252(g) Restricts Review of Certain Decisions to Commence or Execute Removal

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 25, 2026

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee involved noncitizens who alleged that immigration enforcement targeted them because of association with a politically unpopular organization.

Section 1252(g) addresses three discrete actions

The Court rejected a reading covering every claim arising from removal proceedings, focusing instead on decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.

Prosecutorial discretion was central

The challenged selective-enforcement theory attacked the Executive’s choice to initiate or pursue removal, an area in which enforcement priorities and evidentiary judgments are especially prominent.

The Court rejected the asserted review route

The respondents could not maintain the case through the jurisdictional path used, and the Court treated the alleged selective enforcement as insufficient to escape the statutory restriction on the facts presented.

Not every immigration claim is barred

Claims outside the three specified actions, and claims using review mechanisms Congress preserved, require separate analysis. Later jurisdictional statutes and current circuit law must be applied precisely.

Key takeaways

• Identify the exact government action being challenged.
• Separate commencement or execution decisions from detention or procedural claims.
• Use the review route Congress currently provides.
• Calendar the petition-for-review deadline even while jurisdiction is disputed.