Cases by Issue - Immigration and Naturalization

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-1595

Petitioner

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

535 U.S. 137 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

Decided

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

Advocates

Ryan D. McCortney (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Paul R. Q. Wolfson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. hired Jose Castro on the basis of documents appearing to verify his authorization to work in the United States. After Castro engaged in union-organizing activities, Hoffman laid him off. The National Labor Relations Board (Board) found that the layoff violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered backpay for Castro. At a compliance hearing, Castor testified before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that he was born in Mexico, that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, this country, and that he gained employment with Hoffman only after tendering a birth certificate that was not his. The ALJ found that Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which makes it unlawful for employers knowingly to hire undocumented workers or for employees to use fraudulent documents to establish employment eligibility, precluded Castro's award. In reversing, the Board noted that the most effective way to further the immigration policies embodied in IRCA is to provide the NLRA's protections and remedies to undocumented workers in the same manner as to other employees. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order.

Question

Does the National Labor Relations Board have the discretion to award backpay to an undocumented alien employee who was not legally authorized to work in the United States?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1324

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that such relief is foreclosed by federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the IRCA. The Court reasoned that allowing the Board to award backpay to illegal aliens ran counter to explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy and that however broad the Board's discretion to fashion remedies when dealing only with the NLRA was, it was not so unbounded as to authorize the award. "Congress has expressly made it criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false documents. There is no reason to think that Congress nonetheless intended to permit backpay where but for an employer's unfair labor practices, an alien- employee would have remained in the United States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while successfully evading apprehension by immigration authorities," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ins v. Pangilinan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1992

Petitioner

Ins

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pangilinan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 86-2019

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 875 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Decided

Friday, June 17, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the petitioner)

Donald L. Ungar (on behalf of the respondents)

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

Reagan v. Abourezk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-656

Petitioner

Reagan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Abourezk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Opinion

484 U.S. 1 (1987)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1987

Decided

Monday, October 19, 1987

Advocates

Steven R. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 3 votes for Abourezk, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Kungys v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-228

Petitioner

Kungys

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 759 (1988)

Argued

Monday, April 27, 1987

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 13, 1987

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1988

Advocates

Robert H. Klonoff (on behalf of the Respondent)

Donald J. Williamson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Toll v. Moreno

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-2178

Petitioner

Toll

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Moreno

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

458 U.S. 1 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, March 2, 1982

Decided

Monday, June 28, 1982

Advocates

Robert A. Zarnoch (on behalf of the Petitioners)

James R. Bieke (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Moreno, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 6, Section 2: Supremacy Clause

None

Plyler v. Doe

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:15 +0000

Location

Tyler Independent School District

1319 New Sunnybrook Tyler TX 75701

Tyler, TX 75701

United States

32° 19' 27.7896" N, 95° 17' 59.2656" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1538

Appellee

Doe

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Plyler

Respondent Type

Appellant

Consolidation

No. 80-1934

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, December 1, 1981

Decided

Tuesday, June 15, 1982

Advocates

Peter D. Roos (Argued the cause for the appellees in Plyler v. Doe)

Peter A. Schey (Argued the cause for appellees in the related case)

John C. Hardy (Argued the cause for the appellants in Plyler v. Doe)

Richard L. Arnett (Argued the cause for appellants in the related case)

Facts of the Case

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question

Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Doe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Fedorenko v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-5602

Petitioner

Fedorenko

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 490 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, October 15, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, January 21, 1981

Advocates

Benjamin R. Civiletti (on behalf of the Respondent)

Brian M. Gildea (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Vance v. Terrazas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:21 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-1143

Appellee

Terrazas

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Vance

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 252 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 30, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1980

Advocates

Allan A. Ryan, Jr. (on behalf of the Appellant)

Kenneth K. Ditkowsky (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nyquist v. Mauclet

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-208

Appellee

Mauclet

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nyquist

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

432 U.S. 1 (1977)

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 1977

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mauclet, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Mathews v. Diaz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1046

Appellee

Diaz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 67 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1975

Reargued:

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mathews, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

United States v. Campos-Serrano

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-46

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Campos-Serrano

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 293 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, October 14, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 20, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Campos-Serrano, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1546

None

Astrup v. Immigration Service

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

840

Petitioner

Astrup

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Immigration Service

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 509 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, May 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Astrup, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Graham v. Richardson

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

Location

Arizona Dept of Public Welfare

1717 W Jefferson St Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 47.292" N, 112° 5' 47.418" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

609

Appellant

John O. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare, State of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Carmen Richardson et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 727, Sailer et al. v. Leer et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 365 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Advocates

Michael S. Flam (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 609)

Joseph P. Work (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 727)

Anthony P. Ching (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 609)

Jonathan M. Stein (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 727, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

The state of Arizona restricts the distribution of welfare benefits to individuals who are either United States citizens or aliens who have lived in the country for at least 15 years. In 1969, Carmen Richardson, a resident alien of Arizona who met all requirements for welfare eligibility except the residency requirement, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the State's Department of Public Welfare questioning the constitutionality of that requirement. The three-judge court in the District of Arizona found in favor of Richardson, but the Commissioner appealed. In the same year, a similar class action suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this case, resident aliens of Pennsylvania challenged state law which dictated that if a Pennsylvania resident did not qualify for federal aid then he or she could only receive welfare benefits from the state if he or she were a citizen or had applied for citizenship. This three-judge court also found in favor of the resident aliens. However, one judge disagreed, and the defendants, namely the Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance and the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare, appealed.

Question

Does a state, like Arizona or Pennsylvania, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it denies welfare benefits to those who are not United States citizens or to aliens who have not lived in this country for a certain number of years?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Richardson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court asserted that to classify state residents solely based on alienage was inherently questionable, because aliens constitute a minority, separate from the rest of the population. The Court conceded that there had been instances in which state laws could treat citizens and non-citizens differently. However, it maintained that a state’s aim to conserve welfare benefits for citizens would not legitimize the denial of welfare benefits to aliens. Their justification was that the aliens pay taxes and, consequently, contribute to the pool of money from which welfare benefits are drawn. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the welfare benefit restrictions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

156

Petitioner

Rosenberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yee Chien Woo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

402 U.S. 49 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Decided

Wednesday, April 21, 1971

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

Rogers v. Bellei

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

William P. Rogers, Secretary of State

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Aldo Mario Bellei

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, January 15, 1970

Reargued:

Thursday, November 12, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Advocates

Joseph J. Connolly (argued the cause for the appellant on the original argument)

Erwin N. Griswold (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellant on the reargument)

O. John Rogge (reargued the cause for the appellee)

Richard N. Gardner (argued the cause on the reargument for the Association of American Wives of Europeans et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Rogers, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Citizenship Clause

None

Afroyim v. Rusk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

456

Petitioner

Afroyim

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rusk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Argued

Monday, February 20, 1967

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1967

Advocates

Edward J. Ennis (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Charles Gordon (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

After immigrating to the United States from Poland in 1912, Beys Afroyim became a naturalized American citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim went to Israel where he voted in that country's 1951 governmental elections. In 1960, Afroyim applied for renewal a of his American passport. The State Department informed him that he had forfeited his American citizenship by virtue of Section 401(e) of the 1940 Nationality Act which stipulates that citizens of the United States shall "lose" their citizenship upon voting in a foreign state's political elections. Afroyim challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(e). On appeal from a district court's summary judgment favoring Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Afroyim certiorari.

Question

Does Section 401(e) of the 1940 Nationality Act, revoking U.S. citizenship to persons who vote in other countries' elections, violate either the Fifth Amendment right to Due Process or the Fourteenth Amendment, under which naturalized citizens are granted national citizenship?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Afroyim, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Citizenship Clause

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, overruling Perez v. Brownell (356 US 44), the Court held that Congress has no general power to revoke American citizenship without consent. Noting the special bond between Americans and their government, a bond that protects every citizen against all manner of destruction of their rights, the Court held that only citizens themselves may voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. This sacred principle applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens. As such, Section 401(e) violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Berenyi v. Immigration Director

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Berenyi

Respondent

Immigration Director

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 630 (1967)

Argued

December 5-6, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Schneider v. Rusk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

368

Appellee

Rusk

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Schneider

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, April 2, 1964

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mrvica v. Esperdy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

353

Petitioner

Mrvica

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Esperdy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 560 (1964)

Argued

Thursday, March 5, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 30, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Esperdy, 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

Rusk v. Cort

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Cort

Respondent

Rusk

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 367 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1961

Reargued:

December 4-5, 1962

Decided

Monday, April 2, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:58 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Mendoza-Martinez

Respondent

Kennedy

Consolidation

Rusk v. Cort, No. 3

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 144 (1963)

Argued

October 10-11, 1961

Reargued:

December 4-5, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Advocates

Bruce J. Terris (Reargued the cause for the appellant)

Thomas R. Davis (Reargued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (Martinez) was an American by birth with dual Mexican citizenship. Martinez admitted that to avoid the draft, in 1942, he left the United States for Mexico and did not return until November, 1946. As a result of his deliberate absence, Martinez entered a guilty plea in 1947 to violating Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (the "Act") and served 366 days in prison. Five years after his release, Martinez was issued an arrest and deportation warrant premised on a violation of Section 401(j) of the Act which divested draft dodgers of their U.S. citizenship. Following a dismissal of his appeal from the Attorney General's special inquiry decision stripping him of his U.S. citizenship, Martinez challenged the constitutionality of Section 401(j) in District Court but was defeated. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's opinion upholding the district court decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. This case was decided together with Rusk v. Cort.

Question

Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Mendoza-Martinez, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Estoppel

Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court began by sustaining the validity of the Government's second action against Martinez since it addressed his lost of citizenship rather than revisiting his self-confessed draft evasion. The Court added, however, that although citizenship duties entail military service, the Government cannot divest citizens of their citizenship as a result of draft evasion alone. The imposition of such a drastic penalty, in the context of a reflexive statutory scheme, violates constitutional due process by denying subjects procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to experience a more incremental penal structure.

Montana v. Kennedy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

198

Petitioner

Montana

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kennedy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1961

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Kennedy, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 2 Stat. 155

None

Costello v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Costello

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 265 (1961)

Argued

Monday, December 12, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 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. Lucchese

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Lucchese

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

365 U.S. 290 (1961)

Argued

Thursday, December 8, 1960, Monday, December 12, 1960

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1961

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Lucchese, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Polites v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Polites

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 426 (1960)

Argued

Tuesday, October 18, 1960

Decided

Monday, November 21, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Chaunt v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Chaunt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

364 U.S. 350 (1960)

Argued

Monday, October 17, 1960

Decided

Monday, November 14, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Mendoza-Martinez

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mackey

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 384 (1960)

Argued

Tuesday, November 10, 1959

Decided

Monday, April 18, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Tak Shan Fong v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

110

Petitioner

Tak Shan Fong

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

359 U.S. 102 (1959)

Argued

Tuesday, February 24, 1959

Decided

Monday, March 23, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 8 U.S.C. 1440

None

Maisenberg v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Maisenberg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 670 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, January 28, 1958

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nowak v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Nowak

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 660 (1958)

Argued

Tuesday, January 28, 1958

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Trop v. Dulles

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:57 +0000

Location

Military Stockade Casablanca

United States

33° 31' 59.9988" N, 7° 34' 59.9988" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Trop

Respondent

Dulles

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 86 (1958)

Argued

Thursday, May 2, 1957

Reargued:

October 28-29, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 31, 1958

Advocates

J. Lee Rankin (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Osmond K. Fraenkel (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Oscar H. Davis (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In 1944, United States Army private Albert Trop escaped from a military stockade at Casablanca, Morocco, following his confinement for a disciplinary violation. A day later, Trop willingly surrendered to an army truck headed back to Casablanca. Despite testifying that he "decided to return to the stockade" when he was picked up, a general court martial convicted Trop of desertion and sentenced him to three years at hard labor, loss of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. In 1952, Trop applied for a passport. His application was rejected under Section 401(g) of the amended 1940 Nationality Act, on the ground that he lost his citizenship due to his conviction and dishonorable discharge for wartime desertion. After failing to obtain a declaratory judgment that he was a US citizen, from both a district and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Trop appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Question

Did Section 401(g) of the amended 1940 Nationality Act (the "Act") allow for an unconstitutional punishment by authorizing the expatriation of a citizen convicted of wartime desertion?

Conclusion

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

Yes. After finding that Section 401(g) of the amended Act was penal in nature, since it punished convicted deserters with denationalization, the Court held that expatriation was barred by the Eighth Amendment as a cruel and unusual penal remedy. Citizenship, the Court stated, is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. Rather, it can only be voluntarily renounced by express language and, or, conduct. Since Trop did not involve himself in any way with a foreign state, so as to demonstrate disloyalty to the United States, his court martial conviction of desertion did not justify his expatriation.

Perez v. Brownell

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Perez

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brownell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 44 (1958)

Argued

Wednesday, May 1, 1957

Reargued:

Monday, October 28, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 31, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Nishikawa v. Dulles

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Nishikawa

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Dulles

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 129 (1958)

Argued

May 1-2, 1957

Reargued:

Monday, October 28, 1957

Decided

Monday, March 31, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Nishikawa, 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. Zucca

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

213

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Zucca

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 91 (1956)

Argued

January 24-25, 1956

Decided

Monday, April 30, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

United States v. Minker

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Minker

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 47

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

350 U.S. 179 (1956)

Argued

Monday, November 14, 1955

Decided

Monday, January 16, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

195

Appellee

Boyd

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Longshoremen's Union

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 222 (1954)

Argued

Wednesday, January 6, 1954

Decided

Monday, March 8, 1954

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Boyd, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Schneider v. Rusk

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

251

Petitioner

Schneider

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rusk

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

372 U.S. 224 (1963)

Decided

Monday, February 18, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Schneider, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 2282

None

Thompson v. I. N. S.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

496

Petitioner

Thompson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

I. N. S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 384 (1964)

Decided

Monday, January 6, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thompson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None