Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Accardi: Immigration Decisionmakers Had to Exercise the Discretion Their Rules Assigned

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 14, 2026

United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy challenged the denial of suspension of deportation on the allegation that the Attorney General had placed Accardi on a confidential list of disfavored people before the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled.

The regulations delegated discretion to the Board

Valid Justice Department regulations assigned the discretionary decision to the Board and required its members to exercise independent judgment. While those regulations remained operative, the Attorney General could not sidestep that allocation by dictating an outcome.

The habeas allegations described prejudgment

Accardi alleged that the Attorney General publicly announced a program to deport listed people and that Board members knew he appeared on the list. If proved, those facts could show that the Board did not make the independent decision its rules required.

The Court addressed process rather than the discretionary merits

The Court did not substitute its view on whether suspension should be granted. It held that an agency’s alleged failure to exercise the discretion conferred by its own regulations was a reviewable defect.

The remedy depended on proof in district court

The judgment was reversed so Accardi could attempt to prove the alleged interference. If he proved it, he was entitled to a new Board hearing unburdened by the prior proscription.

Key takeaways

• Identify the regulation or binding procedure that assigns decision authority.
• Build evidence showing how the agency departed from that rule in the individual case.
• Separate an Accardi process claim from disagreement with discretionary merits.
• Request a remedy that restores the promised independent decision process.