Cases by Issue - Deportation

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1376

Petitioner

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2006-2009)

Opinion

548 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, October 31, 2005

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Advocates

Sri Srinivasan (argued the cause for Respondent)

David M. Gossett (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas entered the United States illegally and was deported in 1981. He illegally re-entered in 1982 and lived in the U.S. until 2001, when he married a U.S. citizen and applied to adjust his status to permanent resident. While applying, Fernandez-Vargas was arrested and eventually deported pursuant to Section 241(a)(5) (the "reinstatement statute") of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The reinstatement statute, which became effective in 1997, allows prior deportation orders to be reinstated against aliens who re-enter the country illegally, and denies those aliens any form of relief under the INA. Fernandez-Vargas petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for review, arguing that Section 421(a)(5) was not intended to reinstate deportation orders that were issued prior to its enactment. The Circuit Court denied the petition. It held that Fernandez-Vargas' application for permanent resident status was a form of relief not allowd by the reinstatement statute. It also held that Congress did intend the reinstatement statute to apply to deportation orders, such as Fernandez-Vargas', that were issued before the statute went into effect. Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that this application of the law was not impermissibly retroactive, because Fernandez-Vargas had no "protectable expectation of being able to adjust his status."

Question

(1) Does the reinstatement statute of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a prior deportation order against an illegal alien to be reinstated, apply to aliens who re-entered the U.S. before the statute went into effect? (2) If so, is this application impermissibly retroactive?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gonzales, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

Yes and no. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Court ruled that the reinstatement statute does apply to illegal aliens who re- entered the U.S. before the effective date of the statute, and that the application to such aliens was not impermissibly retroactive. The Court held that the purpose of Section 421(a)(5) was most consistent with a broad application, and "Common principles of statutory interpretation fail to unsettle the apparent application [...] to any reentrant present in the country, whatever the date of return." The majority opinion affirmed the presumption against retroactive statutes, but found the reinstatement statute permissible under a test set out in Landgraf v. USI Film Products. The main weakness in Fernandez-Vargas's argument was that his offense was not a "past act that he is helpless to undo," but rather the "continuing violation" of remaining in the country illegally.

In a lone dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with both of the Court's conclusions. He wrote that Fernandez-Vargas "legitimately complains that the Government has changed the rules midgame."

Clark v. Martinez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-878

Petitioner

A. Neil Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle, Washington, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sergio Martinez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Daniel Benitez v. Michael Rozos, Field Office Director, Miami, No. 03-7434

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

543 U.S. 371 (2005)

Granted

Monday, March 1, 2004

Argued

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (argued the cause for United States)

John S. Mills (argued the cause for Benitez)

Christine S. Dahl (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

The federal government deemed Daniel Benitez and Sergio Martinez inadmissible immigrants and detained them until they could be returned to Cuba.

Benitez and Martinez argued that because deportation to Cuba was unforeseeable, they could not be detained longer than the 90 days allowed by federal law. They pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Zadvydas v. Davis that said the government can detain beyond 90 days immigrants who were admitted to the United States, but only so long as necessary to deport them. Immigrants must be released if deportation is unforeseeable, the Court said.

While separate district courts agreed deportation to Cuba was unforeseeable, the Ninth Circuit and 11th Circuits disagreed over whether Zadvydas applied to inadmissible immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the two cases.

Question

In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court said admitted immigrants could be detained for deportation for more than 90 days, but no longer than reasonably necessary. Did this ruling apply to inadmissible aliens, such as Benitez and Martinez?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Martinez, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1231

Yes. In a 7-2 decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said the requirement that immigrants be detained no longer than reasonably necessary for deportation applied to both admissible and inadmissible immigrants. Because readmission to Cuba was unforeseeable, the detentions of Martinez and Benitez were unreasonable. The Court refused to give the same immigration statute different interpretations based on immigrants' characteristics.

Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-674

Petitioner

Keyse G. Jama

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

543 U.S. 335 (2005)

Granted

Monday, February 23, 2004

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Decided

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Advocates

Jeffrey J. Keyes (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Malcolm L. Stewart (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

A Minnesota state court convicted Somalian refugee Keyse Jama of assault. As a result the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) argued in immigration court that Jama should be deported to Somalia. The court agreed and an immigration appeals court also agreed. Jama then appealed to a federal district court and argued the part of the U.S. Code dealing with deporting an alien to his country of birth required that country to first accept the alien. Because Somalia lacked a functioning central government, this was impossible. The district court ruled for Jama. A federal appellate court reversed and said Jama and the district court misinterpreted the law.

Question

May immigration officials deport a person to his country of birth under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv), if that country lacks a functioning central government that is able to accept the person's return?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1231

Yes. Federal immigration law permitted an alien to be removed to a country without the advance consent of that country's government. Of the four removal options federal immigration law listed, an acceptance requirement appeared in only one clause: "...he shall be removed to another country whose government will accept him." That clause only applied after the attorney general attempted the prior deportation option. The grammatical "rule of the last antecedent," prevented "another" from applying to the earlier options. Nor did the law's structure impose an acceptance requirement. Moreover, contrary to Jama's argument, the acceptance requirement was hardly settled judicial interpretation.

Leocal v. Ashcroft

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-583

Petitioner

Josue Leocal

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

543 U.S. 1 (2004)

Granted

Monday, February 23, 2004

Argued

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Decided

Tuesday, November 9, 2004

Advocates

Joseph S. Sollers, III (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Dan Himmelfarb (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

A Florida court convicted Vietnam citizen Duan Le for driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged in federal immigration court that Le should be deported. The INS argued Le committed a crime of violence that was an aggravated felony under federal immigration laws - a deportable crime. The immigration court and an appellate immigration court ruled Le could be deported. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

Question

Is a conviction of driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury a "crime of violence" under federal immigration law that allows the person to be deported as an aggravated felon?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Leocal, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts, except for RICO (q.v.) portion

No. In a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice William Rhenquist, the Court held that state DUI offenses, except when involving purposeful intent, are accidental and not crimes of violence under federal law. Le therefore did not commit an aggravated felony for which he could be deported.

Demore v. Kim

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:48 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-1491

Petitioner

Demore

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kim

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

538 U.S. 510 (2003)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 2003

Decided

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

Advocates

Judy Rabinovitz (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Theodore B. Olson (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC section 1226(c), the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is removable from this country because he has been convicted of one of a specified set of crimes, including an aggravated felony. After Hyung Joon Kim, a lawful permanent resident alien, was convicted in state court of first-degree burglary and petty theft with priors, the Immigration and Naturalization Service charged him with being deportable and detained him pending his removal hearing. Kim filed a habeas corpus action challenging section 1226(c) on the ground that his detention violated due process because the INS had made no determination that he posed either a danger to society or a flight risk. The District Court granted Kim's petition. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that the INS had not provided a justification for no-bail civil detention sufficient to overcome a permanent resident alien's liberty interest.

Question

Does the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides for no-bail, civil detention, violate a lawful permanent resident alien's liberty interest?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Demore, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held, 6-3, that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to grant habeas relief to aliens challenging their detention under section 1226(c) and, 5-4, that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that Congress, concerned that deportable criminal aliens may fail to appear for their removal hearings, has the authority to require that persons be detained for the brief period necessary for their removal proceedings. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the first holding, reasoning that the Act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction in such a case. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the Court's second holding. The minority argued against the Court's approval of lengthy mandatory detention.

INS v. St. Cyr

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-767

Petitioner

INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Cyr

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

533 U.S. 289 (2001)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Decided

Monday, June 25, 2001

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lucas Guttentag (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

On March 8, 1996, Enrico St. Cyr, a lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in a Connecticut court to a charge of selling a controlled substance. That conviction made him deportable. Before the effective dates of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was interpreted to give the Attorney General broad discretion to waive deportation of resident aliens. The AEDPA and IIRIRA restricted the class of aliens depending on section 212(c) for relief. St. Cyr's removal proceedings commenced after AEDPA's and IIRIRA's effective dates. Subsequently, the Attorney General claimed that the AEDPA and IIRIRA withdrew his authority to grant St. Cyr a waiver. The District Court accepted St. Cyr's habeas corpus application and agreed that the new restrictions do not apply to removal proceedings brought against an alien who pleaded guilty to a deportable crime before their enactment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question

Do the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 strip district courts of their jurisdiction under the general habeas corpus statute to entertain St. Cyr's challenge? Do the AEDPA and IIRIRA deny relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to aliens who would have been eligible for such relief at the time of their convictions?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for St. Cyr, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

No and no. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that habeas jurisdiction was not repealed by AEDPA and IIRIRA. Additionally, the Court held that "[section 212(c)] relief remains available for aliens, like [Enrico St. Cyr], whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for [section 212(c)] relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect." Justice Stevens wrote that "[w]e find nothing in IIRIRA unmistakably indicating that Congress considered the question whether to apply its repeal of [section 212(c)] retroactively to such aliens."

Calcano-Martinez v. INS

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-1011

Petitioner

Calcano-Martinez et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

INS

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

533 U.S. 348 (2001)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Decided

Monday, June 25, 2001

Advocates

Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondent)

Lucas Guttentag (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) expressly precludes courts of appeals from exercising "jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against any alien who is removable by reason of "a conviction for certain criminal offenses, including any aggravated felony." Deboris Calcano-Martinez, Sergio Madrid, and Fazila Khan are all lawful permanent residents of the United States subject to administratively final orders of removal because they were convicted of aggravated felonies. Each filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals and a habeas corpus petition in the District Court to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that they were ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that they could pursue their claims in a District Court habeas action.

Question

Does the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 remove the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts to review direct appeals of final deportation orders, but preserve federal district courts' habeas jurisdiction over challenges to those orders?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Calcano-Martinez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus)

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitions for direct but petitioners can proceed with their habeas petitions if they wish to obtain relief. "As petitioners in this case were convicted of 'aggravated felonies' within the meaning of the relevant statutes," wrote Justice Stevens, "the plain language of [IIRIRA] fairly explicitly strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to hear their claims on petitions for direct review." Justice Stevens continued that "Congress has not spoken with sufficient clarity to strip the district courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions raising identical claims."

Zadvydas v. Davis

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:32 +0000

Location

Office of Attorney General

"950 Pennsylvania Avenue**** NW" Washington D.C. 20530

Washington 20530

United States

38° 53' 31.8084" N, 77° 1' 30.2196" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-7791

Petitioner

Zadvydas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Davis

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 00-38

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

533 U.S. 678 (2001)

Argued

Wednesday, February 21, 2001

Decided

Thursday, June 28, 2001

Advocates

Robert F. Barnard (New Orleans, Louisiana, argued the cause for the petitioner Zadvydas)

Edwin S. Kneedler (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondents in 99-7791 and the petitioners in 00-38)

Jay W. Stansell (Seattle, Washington, argued the cause for the respondent Ma)

Facts of the Case

After a final removal order is entered, an alien ordered removed is held in custody during a 90-day removal period. If the alien is not removed in those 90 days, the post-removal-period detention statute authorizes further detention or supervised release. After being ordered deported based on is criminal record, efforts to deport Kestutis Zadvydas failed. When he remained in custody after the removal period expired, Zadvydas filed a habeas action. In granting the writ, the District Court reasoned that his confinement would be permanent and thus violate the Constitution. In reversing, the Court of Appeals concluded that Zadvydas' detention did not violate the Constitution because eventual deportation was not impossible. Conversely, in ordering Kim Ho Ma's release, the District Court held that the Constitution forbids post- removal-period detention unless there is a realistic chance that an alien will be removed, and that no such chance existed here because Cambodia has no repatriation treaty with the United States. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that detention was not authorized for more than a reasonable time beyond the 90-day period.

Question

Does the post-removal-period statute authorize the Attorney General to detain a removable alien indefinitely beyond the 90-day removal period?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zadvydas, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that "the statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, limits an alien's post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States" and "does not permit indefinite detention." "Based on our conclusion that indefinite detention of aliens in the former category would raise serious constitutional concerns, we construe the statute to contain an implicit 'reasonable time' limitation, the application of which is subject to federal court review," wrote Justice Breyer.

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1754

Petitioner

INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aguirre-Aguirre

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 415 (1999)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1999

Decided

Monday, May 3, 1999

Advocates

Patricia A. Millett (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Nadine K. Wettstein (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides asylum to aliens who can demonstrate that they will be persecuted if deported, it does not protect aliens who commit "serious nonpolitical crimes" before their arrival in the United States. After burning busses, assaulting passengers, and vandalizing private property in his native Guatemala, Juan Aguiree fled to and, sought asylum in, the United States. Despite Aguirre's claims that his acts constituted political protest, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned an administrative court's finding in favor of asylum. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed as it found the BIA's analysis deficient in three parts: it failed to balance the severity of Aguirre's offenses against the threat of political persecution; it failed to qualify the atrocities of Aguiree's acts in comparison with others it faced in the past; and it did not consider whether Aguree's acts were politically necessary or successful. When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) appealed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Does the Immigration and Nationality Act require deportation boards, who face aliens that committed nonpolitical crimes prior to seeking asylum, to: balance the severity of the alien's offenses against the threat of political persecution, compare the atrocities of the crimes with others it faced in the past, or consider whether the crimes were politically necessary or successful?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for INS, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court noted that withholding of deportation is mandatory if an alien establishes that it is more likely than not that he or she will suffer political persecution if deported. The Court added that the BIA was not required to balance the severity of the acts in question against threats of political persecution, compare the actions with others, or pronounce on their political success or necessity. Likelihood of political persecution is the overarching issue when considering an alien's deportability, followed by a determination of whether the crimes at issue were serious and nonpolitical.

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:40:14 +0000

Location

Attorney General Office

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington D.C., DC 20530

United States

38° 53' 31.8084" N, 77° 1' 30.2196" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1252

Petitioner

Reno

Respondent

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

525 U.S. 471 (1999)

Argued

Wednesday, November 4, 1998

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1999

Advocates

David D. Cole (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Malcolm L. Stewart (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat, Julie Mungai, Amjad Obeid, Ayman Obeid, Naim Sharif, Khader Hamide, and Michel Shehadeh, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), were marked for deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The PFLP is characterized by the government as an international terrorist and communist organization. The resident aliens filed suit alleging the Attorney General and other federal parties had targeted them for deportation because of their affiliation with a politically unpopular group, in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. Initially, the District Court enjoined the deportation proceedings. During the case, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The IIRIRA restricts judicial review of the Attorney General's "decision or action" to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act." Reno then filed motions arguing that the IIRIRA deprived the courts of jurisdiction over the aliens' selective-enforcement claim. The District Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision on the merits.

Question

Does the IIRIRA deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over aliens' suits alleging that actions of the Attorney General are selectively enforced?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Reno, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1252

Yes. In an 8-1 decision, announced by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that the IIRIRA deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over the selective- enforcement claim. Justice Scalia wrote, "[a]s a general matter -- and assuredly in the context of claims such as those put forward in the present case -- an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation."

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Yueh-Shaio Yang

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-938

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yueh-Shaio Yang

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 26 (1996)

Argued

Tuesday, October 15, 1996

Decided

Wednesday, November 13, 1996

Advocates

Beth S. Brinkmann (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Howard Hom (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Yueh-Shaio Yang and his wife, former Taiwan residents, executed elaborate fraudulent schemes to gain entry to the United States and, later, to obtain Yang's citizenship. While Yang's naturalization application was pending, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) learned of his unlawful entry and issued an order to show cause why he should not be deported at the time of entry. Yang conceded that he was deportable and filed a request for a waiver of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act with the Attorney General. An Immigration Judge denied Yang's request. In affirming, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that Yang was statutorily eligible for a waiver, but denied it as a matter of discretion. In vacating, the Court of Appeals held that the Board had abused its discretion by considering the adverse factors of Yang's participation in his wife's fraudulent entry and, secondly, his fraudulent naturalization application. The court reasoned that Yang's actions in his wife's fraudulent entry were "inextricably intertwined" with his own efforts to secure entry and must be considered part of the initial fraud, while his application must be considered an "extension" of that initial fraud.

Question

May the Imigration and Naturalization Service, when deciding whether to grant a discretionary waiver of deportation under the applicable provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, take into account acts of fraud committed by an alien in connection to his entry into the United States?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

Yes. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that in deciding whether to grant a waiver under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General or her delegate, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, may take into account acts of fraud committed by the alien in connection to his entry into the United States. Justice Scalia wrote, the Act "imposes no limitations on the factors that the INS may consider in determining who, among the class of eligible aliens, should be granted relief."

Stone v. Immigration And Naturalization Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-1199

Petitioner

Stone

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

514 U.S. 386 (1995)

Argued

Monday, November 28, 1994

Decided

Wednesday, April 19, 1995

Advocates

Beth S. Brinkmann (on behalf of the Respondent)

Alan B. Morrison (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration And Naturalization Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:26 +0000

Location

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500

Washington, DC 20500

United States

38° 53' 51.5796" N, 77° 2' 11.6304" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-344

Petitioner

Chris Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

509 U.S. 155 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1993

Decided

Monday, June 21, 1993

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on behalf of the Petitioners)

Harold Hongju Koh (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

According to Executive Order No. 12807 signed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, the Coast Guard was required to force the return of all passengers discovered illegally traveling by sea from Haiti to the United States before reaching its borders without determining whether they qualify as refugees. The Haitian Centers Council, Inc., a collection of organizations representing illegal Haitian aliens and Haitians detained at Guantanamo, requested that the District Court for the Eastern District of New York delay the implementation of the order. The council argued that the order violated section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and Article 33 of the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which protect individuals escaping potential prosecution from forced repatriation. The District Court denied the council's request, but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.

Question

Is Executive Order No. 12807 a violation of section 243(h) or Article 33?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration And Naturalization Service, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

No. In a majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court observed that Acts of Congress do not generally have application outside of United States territory, unless explicitly noted. And, it found that both section 243(h) and Article 33 are silent regarding extraterritorial application. In fact, the language of both suggests that only individuals who have already arrived on United States soil are protected, and their use throughout history confirms this interpretation. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Reno, Attorney General v. Flores

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:00:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-905

Petitioner

Reno, Attorney General, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Flores et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

507 U.S. 292 (1993)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, March 23, 1993

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Carlos Holguin (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Reno, Attorney General, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. National Center For Immigrants' Rights, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1090

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Center For Immigrants' Rights, Inc., et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 183 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1991

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1991

Advocates

Stephen J. Marzen (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Peter A. Schey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1342

Petitioner

Immigration And Naturalization Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Elias-Zacarias

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

502 U.S. 478 (1992)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 1991

Decided

Wednesday, January 22, 1992

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James Robertson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Ins v. Abudu

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1128

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abudu

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 94 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 1, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Dorothy A. Harper (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

United States v. Mendoza-Lopez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-2067

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mendoza-Lopez

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

481 U.S. 828 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, March 3, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, May 26, 1987

Advocates

Kathy Goudy (on behalf of the Respondent, appointed by this Court)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mendoza-Lopez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Ins v. Cardoza-Fonseca

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-782

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cardoza-Fonseca

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 421 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, October 7, 1986

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1987

Advocates

Dana Marks Keener (on behalf of Respondent)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cardoza-Fonseca, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Ins v. Rios-Pineda

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-2032

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rios-Pineda

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Monday, May 13, 1985

Advocates

Lawrence H. Rudnick (on behalf of Respondents)

Alan I. Horowitz (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Ins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-491

Petitioner

INS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lopez-Mendoza

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 1032 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, April 18, 1984

Decided

Thursday, July 5, 1984

Advocates

Mary L. Heen (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Andrew L. Frey (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Respondents Adan Lopez-Mendoza and Elias Sandoval-Sanchez, both Mexican citizens, were ordered deported by an immigration judge in separate proceedings. The orders were issued based upon each respondent's admission to Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials that he had entered the country unlawfully. Lopez-Mendoza and Sandoval-Sanchez challenged the orders on grounds that their respective arrests by INS officials were illegal and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sandoval-Sanchez further moved to have his admission suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest. (Lopez-Mendoza did not move to strike his admission from the record.) In each case, the presiding judge found the legality of the arrests irrelevant to the determination of the respondents' deportation status. On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders noting that deportation proceedings are civil actions and "[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation hearing." The BIA also found application of the exclusionary rule in a deportation proceeding inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed finding the respondents' arrests were illegal and the resulting admissions fruit of unlawful arrests.

Question

Do the strictures of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply in deportation proceedings?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for INS, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment)

No. In both criminal and civil proceedings, the "body" or identity of a defendant is never suppressible as fruit of an illegal arrest. This alone was sufficient basis to uphold Lopez-Mendoza's deportation order. Moreover, deportation proceedings are civil actions and the protections afforded defendants in the criminal context do not apply. Specifically, Sandoval- Sanchez's appeal to the exclusionary rule in his motion to suppress his admission fails because the purpose the exclusionary rule is designed to servedeterring official misconductis not served in the context of a deportation proceeding. First, the INS is only required to show identity and alienage to meet its burden in a deportation hearing. Since the defendant's body is not suppressible, the INS must only prove alienage, generally not a difficult task even absent a confession. Further, INS has its own comprehensive oversight program in place to monitor Fourth Amendment compliance internally. The exclusionary rule would do little to enhance these efforts. Finally, deportations hearings, unlike criminal trials, are designed to prevent the continued violation of the law. The social cost of releasing a defendant whose mere presence in the country puts him in continued violation of the law is too high to bear in light of the minimal benefits derived from application of the exclusionary rule in this context.

Ins v. Stevic

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-973

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stevic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

467 U.S. 407 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, June 5, 1984

Advocates

Ann L. Ritter (on behalf of the Respondent)

Kenneth S. Geller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ins, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Ins v. Phinpathya

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-91

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Phinpathya

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

464 U.S. 183 (1984)

Argued

Monday, October 3, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, January 10, 1984

Advocates

Elliott Schulder (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Bert D. Greenberg (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Agosto v. Ins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1410

Petitioner

Agosto

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

436 U.S. 748 (1978)

Argued

Tuesday, February 28, 1978

Decided

Tuesday, June 6, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Agosto, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Reid v. Ins

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1541

Petitioner

Reid

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 619 (1975)

Argued

Monday, January 20, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 18, 1975

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Ins, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Immigration Service v. Stanisic

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

297

Petitioner

Immigration Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Stanisic

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 62 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Immigration Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Cheng Fan Kwok v. Immigration Ser

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

638

Petitioner

Cheng Fan Kwok v. Immigration Ser

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

392 U.S. 206 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, May 2, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Immigration Ser, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Boutilier v. Immigration Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

440

Petitioner

Boutilier

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 118 (1967)

Argued

Tuesday, March 14, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Immigration Service, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Woodby v. Immigration Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Woodby

Respondent

Immigration Service

Consolidation

No. 80

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 276 (1966)

Argued

November 16-17, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Woodby, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Immigration Service v. Errico

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Immigration Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Errico

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 91

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 214 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, October 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, December 12, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Errico, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Costello v. Immigration Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Costello

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 120 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, December 12, 1963

Decided

Monday, February 17, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Costello, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Foti v. Immigration Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Foti

Respondent

Immigration Service

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 217 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1963, Monday, October 21, 1963

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Foti, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Rosenberg v. Fleuti

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

248

Petitioner

Rosenberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fleuti

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

374 U.S. 449 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rosenberg, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gastelum-Quinones

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kennedy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 293

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

374 U.S. 469 (1963)

Argued

Tuesday, March 19, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gastelum-Quinones, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Kimm v. Rosenberg

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

139

Petitioner

Kimm

Respondent

Rosenberg

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

363 U.S. 405 (1960)

Argued

May 16-17, 1960

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rosenberg, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Niukkanen v. Mcalexander

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

130

Petitioner

Niukkanen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mcalexander

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 390 (1960)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1960

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mcalexander, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Abel v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Abel

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 217 (1960)

Argued

February 24-25, 1959

Reargued:

Monday, November 9, 1959

Decided

Monday, March 28, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

Leng May Ma v. Barber

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

105

Petitioner

Leng May Ma

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Barber

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 185 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, May 20, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Barber, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Rogers v. Quan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

396

Petitioner

Rogers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Quan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

357 U.S. 193 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, May 20, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rogers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Bonetti v. Rogers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bonetti

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rogers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 691 (1958)

Argued

Monday, April 7, 1958

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Bonetti, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None

Dessalernos v. Savoretti

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

287

Petitioner

Dessalernos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Savoretti

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 269 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, April 3, 1958

Decided

Monday, April 14, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Dessalernos, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Heikkinen v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Heikkinen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 273 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1957

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Heikkinen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Rabang v. Boyd

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

403

Petitioner

Rabang

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Boyd

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 427 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, May 1, 1957

Decided

Monday, May 27, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boyd, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 156

None

Mulcahey v. Catalanotte

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

435

Petitioner

Mulcahey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catalanotte

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 692 (1957)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mulcahey, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Lehmann v. Carson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Lehmann

Respondent

Carson

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 685 (1957)

Argued

March 26-27, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Lehmann, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

205

Petitioner

Hintopoulos

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Shaughnessy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 72 (1957)

Argued

Monday, March 4, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 25, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Shaughnessy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

United States v. Witkovich

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:26:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

295

Appellee

Witkovich

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 194 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, February 28, 1957

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Witkovich, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Ceballos v. Shaughnessy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Ceballos

Respondent

Shaughnessy

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 599 (1957)

Argued

January 16-17, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 11, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Shaughnessy, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Brownell v. Tom We Shung

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brownell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Tom We Shung

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 180 (1956)

Argued

Tuesday, November 13, 1956

Decided

Monday, December 17, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Tom We Shung, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Immigration and Naturalization, Immigration, Nationality, or Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Acts, as amended

None

Rowoldt v. Perfetto

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rowoldt

Respondent

Perfetto

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

355 U.S. 115 (1957)

Argued

November 13-14, 1956

Reargued:

Monday, October 14, 1957

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rowoldt, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Smith, Subversive Activities Control, Communist Control, or other similar federal legislation except the Internal Security Act (qv.)

None