In the 1998 case of Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a group of immigrants could not challenge their deportation on grounds that it was politically motivated. The ADC and several individuals had claimed they were being targeted for deportation due to their affiliation with a controversial Palestinian political organization, asserting this violated their First Amendment rights. However, the court held in favor of then-Attorney General Janet Reno and other government officials by a vote of 6-3. The majority opinion stated that Congress had explicitly barred judicial review in such cases through its passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This ruling reinforced executive branch authority over immigration matters while limiting legal recourse for those alleging selective enforcement based on political beliefs or affiliations.

In the dissenting opinion for Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Justice David Souter argued that the court majority had misinterpreted a provision of immigration law to bar judicial review of deportation proceedings initiated out of alleged discriminatory intent. He contended that this interpretation was inconsistent with Congress's intention and could potentially allow for unchecked governmental discrimination against non-citizens based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications for First Amendment rights if such actions were not subject to judicial scrutiny. Justice Souter concluded by stating his belief that courts should be able to review claims alleging selective enforcement in deportation cases, even when they involve national security concerns.