Shaughnessy V. United States Ex Rel. Mezei .docx

SHAUGHNESSY V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 580 (1952)

Procedural History/Facts Respondent was an immigrant who was born abroad and had previously lived in the United States for more than 25 years.  Respondent left the United States and spent 19 months in Hungary. Upon his return, he was permanently excluded from the United States on national security grounds, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 175.57.  Respondent was stranded on Ellis Island, as no other country would grant him entry. Issue Whether the respondent’s continued exclusion w/o a hearing constituted an unlawful detention? 

Holding No,  

      



Reasoning (Clark) Power to expel or exclude aliens = fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. Congress expressly authorized President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving US during periods of international tension & strife. o AG may shut out aliens whose entry would be prejudicial to interests in US. o May exclude w/o hearing when exclusion based on confidential information the disclosure of which may be prejudicial to public interest. Whatever procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as alien denied entry is concerned. AG cannot be compelled to disclose the evidence underlying his determinations in an exclusion case  not w/in province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review determination of political branch of Government. Harborage at Ellis Island x entry into US o R is entering alien just the same, & may be excluded if unqualified for admission under existing immigration laws. Lawful resident alien x captiously be deprived of constitutional rights to procedural due process. R left w/o authorization or reentry papers. So AG may lawfully exclude R w/o hearing as authorized by emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act. Nor need he disclose evidence upon which determination rests. R’s continued exclusion x deprive him of any statutory or constitutional right Exclusion proceeding grounded on danger to national security presents different considerations; neither rationale nor statutory authority for such release exists. Concurrence/Dissent Justice Black’s, w/ whom Justice Douglas concurs, Dissent –– o R’s continued imprisonment w/o hearing violates due process.



o Neither fed police nor fed prosecutors nor any other governmental official can put or keep people in prison w/o accountability to courts of justice. o R x be deprived of liberty indefinitely except as result of fair open court hearing in which evidence is appraised by court, x prosecutor. Justice Jackson (& Frankfurter) Dissent –– o No free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.  Judges of England developed writ of habeas corpus to preserve immunities from executive restraints. o R is deprived of liberty! o