The U.S. Supreme Court case Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha et al., 1982, centered around the constitutionality of a legislative veto provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Jagdish Rai Chadha was an immigrant who had overstayed his visa but was granted a suspension of deportation by the House of Representatives under INA's Section 244(c)(2), which allowed either house to invalidate such suspensions. However, this decision was challenged as unconstitutional on grounds that it violated separation of powers principles and bicameralism requirements in Article I of the Constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Chadha, declaring that Congress did not have authority to overturn executive decisions without passing new legislation through both houses and obtaining presidential approval or overriding a veto – essentially stating that one-house legislative vetoes were unconstitutional. The court held that these procedures are integral parts of law-making processes designed to protect individuals like Chadha from arbitrary congressional action.

The dissenting opinion in the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha case, delivered by Justice White, argued that the legislative veto was a practical and necessary tool for Congress to exercise control over executive actions. It contended that such vetoes were an integral part of many laws passed by Congress and their invalidation would create significant disruption in federal law. The dissent also pointed out that the majority's decision did not take into account how deeply embedded this practice was within governmental operations or its importance as a check on administrative agencies' power. Furthermore, it suggested that if every instance of legislative veto is considered unconstitutional because it bypasses presentment to the President or bicameralism, then much of what Congress does could be deemed unconstitutional too - which would lead to impractical consequences.