Kent v. Dulles

Media Items
Kent v. Dulles - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Leonard B. Boudin (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
J. Lee Rankin (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
481
Petitioner: 
Kent
Respondent: 
Dulles
Decided By: 
Warren Court (1957-1958)
Opinion: 
357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Categories: 
freedom of association, national security, fifth amendment, due process, right to travel
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_481)
Facts of the Case: 

Rockwell Kent applied for and was refused a passport to visit England. In addition to informing him that his application refusal rested on his Communist Party affiliations, the Passport Office Director told Kent that in order for a passport to be issued a hearing would be necessary. The Director instructed Kent to submit an affidavit as to whether he was a current or past Communist. Upon the advice of counsel, Kent refused to sign the affidavit but did participate in a hearing at which he was once more asked to sign an affidavit concerning his Communist affiliations. When he refused the affidavit, the Passport Department advised Kent that no further action would be taken on his passport request until he satisfied the affidavit requirement. On appeal from consecutive adverse rulings in both district and appellate court, the Supreme Court granted Kent certiorari.

Question: 

Could the Executive's Passport Department defer or refuse the issuance of passports to individuals suspected of being Communists or of traveling abroad to further Communist causes?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Kent, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 22 U.S.C. 211

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Warren
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Frankfurter
Wrote the majority opinion
Douglas
Voted with the minority, joined Clark's dissent
Burton
Wrote a dissent
Clark
Voted with the minority, joined Clark's dissent
Harlan
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the minority, joined Clark's dissent
Whittaker

Full Opinion by Justice William O. Douglas

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court