Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Last updated

Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 14, 1967
Decided May 22, 1967
Full case nameClive Michael Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Citations387 U.S. 118 ( more )
87 S. Ct. 1563; 18 L. Ed. 2d 661
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorBoutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 363 F.2d 488 (2d Cir. 1966); cert. granted, 385 U.S. 927(1966).
Holding
An alien who was a homosexual at the time of entry into the United States can be excluded from immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityClark, joined by Warren, Black, Harlan, Stewart, White
DissentBrennan
DissentDouglas, joined by Fortas
Overruled by
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Abrogated by
Immigration Act of 1990

Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 387 U.S. 118 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld Clive Michael Boutilier's deportation from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 due to his history of homosexual activities. [1] The Act itself did not specify homosexuality among its exclusion criteria, but the Court held that Congress clearly intended that a homosexual individual be excluded from entry into the United States as one "afflicted with [a] psychopathic personality." [2] The decision was abrogated by the Immigration Act of 1990, which rejected sexual orientation as a basis for excluding an individual from immigration. [3]

Contents

Background

Immigration Investigation

In 1955, at the age of 21, Clive Boutilier immigrated from his native Canada to the United States with his family. [4] In 1963, he attempted to apply for American citizenship, and in his application, he revealed to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that he had been arrested on a sodomy charge in New York City in 1959. In a subsequent meeting with an INS investigator, Boutilier revealed additional details about his sexual history, which included consensual same-sex activities both before and after he entered the United States. [5] [1]

The INS sent documentation about Boutilier's testimony to the Public Health Service (PHS) for review. The PHS then issued a certificate indicating that Boutilier "was afflicted with a class A condition, namely, psychopathic personality, sexual deviate, at the time of his admission to the United states for permanent residence on June 22nd, 1955." [5] After receiving this certificate, the INS initiated deportation proceedings against Clive Boutilier based on the exclusion criteria laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. [1]

Boutilier declined an opportunity to submit to a personal examination by PHS doctors, but he had instead offered letters from two different psychiatrists that both concluded that he was not a psychopathic personality as was understood by medical professionals. The first psychiatrist that he consulted, Dr. Edward Falsey, concluded that Boutilier had a psychosexual problem for which he was now beginning treatment, but that he showed no signs of psychosis and, in his professional opinion, there was no risk that Boutilier would develop psychosis in the future. The second psychiatrist, Dr. Montague Ullman, concluded that his sexuality was "fluid and immature" and that his homosexual tendencies were due to a dependent personality pattern and a need to be accepted rather than a psychopathic personality. [5]

Ultimately, these examinations were of little use to Boutilier's case because immigration officials, as well as officials for the PHS, determined that Congress had intended for homosexuals to be included as part of the term "psychopathic personality." So as it related to issues of immigration, it did not matter what medical professionals considered this term to mean. Furthermore, the examinations by these two psychiatrists supported the conclusion that he was a "sexual deviate of the homosexual type," so the PHS would still be required to issue a certificate certifying that he had a "psychopathic personality." [5] [6]

On August 5, 1965, the INS concluded their investigation into Boutilier and ordered that he be deported from the United States and returned to Canada. On January 12, 1966, his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed after they concluded that his deportation order was valid. [5]

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

On June 2, 1966, Clive Boutilier's case was argued before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before judges Leonard P. Moore, John Joseph Smith, and Irving Kaufman. Boutlier's argument in this case did not dispute his diagnosis as a homosexual. Rather, it contended that the term "psychopathic personality" cannot be held to include homosexuals. His case relied upon a recent case from the Ninth Circuit, Fleuti v. Rosenberg , 302 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1962), where it was held that the term "psychopathic personality" was not precise enough to adequately warn a prospective immigrant that homosexual activity was proscribed, so it was thus void for vagueness. On July 8, 1966, the Appellate Court returned their decision that the deportation order was valid. [7]

The majority opinion, written by Kaufman, upheld the deportation order. In this opinion, Kaufman discussed the legislative history of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to support the government's claim that Congress had intended to consider homosexuals as excludable. In particular, he noted that some of the initial bills in Congress had specifically included language to exclude "aliens who are homosexuals or sex perverts" but that the language was eliminated after the PHS advised lawmakers that the "provision for the exclusion of aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality...is sufficiently broad to provide for the exclusion of homosexuals and sex perverts." He also rejected the applicability of Fleuti v. Rosenberg. In this case, the deportation order was primarily based upon Boutilier's behavior prior to entry into the United States, but in Fleuti, the proceedings were mostly focused on post-entry behavior. In his opinion, Kaufman rejected the idea that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applied as the exclusion criterion was not meant to regulate conduct by prospective immigrants, but rather, it was meant to exclude immigrants with certain characteristics. Therefore, it did not matter whether or not it was reasonable for Boutilier to understand that homosexual activities were grounds for denial of entry into the United States. However, he did concede that this doctrine may have been applicable in Fleuti because of that case's reliance on post-entry behavior. [7]

The dissenting opinion, written by Moore, did not contest the idea that Congress intended homosexuality to be considered as a basis for exclusion under the diagnosis of "psychopathic personality." However, Moore did contest the idea that homosexual behavior would always be sufficient to diagnose "psychopathic personality" as it pertained to the law. In particular, he noted the use of the phrase, "frequently include those suffering from sexual deviation" from the PHS's testimony in Congress as evidence that there are situations where the presence of homosexual behavior is not indicative of psychopathic personality and thus not sufficient for exclusion from entry into the United States. From here, he started a discussion about the prevalence of homosexual behavior in society, citing the Kinsey Report assessment that 37% of Americans have had at least one homosexual experience, indicating that homosexual behavior alone would be too broad a criterion for exclusion. He then moved his focus to the void-by-vagueness doctrine that was used in Fleuti and dismissed by the majority. He contended that it was applicable to this case because, based on the examinations performed by the two private psychiatrists, it is reasonable to believe that Boutilier could have changed his behavior prior to immigration were he aware that homosexual behavior could be used to exclude him from immigration to the United States. [7]

Decision

The majority opinion, penned by Tom C. Clark, concluded that Congress had the power to exclude aliens and that Congress intended to include homosexuals in the category of those possessing a "psychopathic personality". The opinion also determined that the statutory language of "psychopathic personality" was not too vague to pass muster under due process review. [2]

A dissent, by William O. Douglas with Abe Fortas concurring, argued that "A label of this kind [psychopathic personality], when freely used, may mean only an unpopular person. It is much too vague by constitutional standards for the imposition of penalties or punishment." According to the dissent, Congress had indeed intended "psychopathic personality" as a medical term, and that medical professionals did not agree that homosexuality was a form of psychopathic personality. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of Immigration Appeals</span> United States Department of Justice agency

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an administrative appellate body within the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice responsible for reviewing decisions of the U.S. immigration courts and certain actions of U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, U.S Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The BIA was established in 1940 after the Immigration and Naturalization Service was transferred from the United States Department of Labor to the Department of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1917</span> United States law

The Immigration Act of 1917 was a United States Act that aimed to restrict immigration by imposing literacy tests on immigrants, creating new categories of inadmissible persons, and barring immigration from the Asia-Pacific zone. The most sweeping immigration act the United States had passed until that time, it followed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in marking a turn toward nativism. The 1917 act governed immigration policy until it was amended by the Immigration Act of 1924; both acts were revised by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Predrag Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that held if an alien seeks to avoid deportation proceedings by claiming that he will be persecuted if he is returned to his native land, he must show a "clear probability" that he will be persecuted there.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case which confirmed that the Attorney General of the United States has broad discretion to reopen deportation proceedings, as well as other adjudications heard before immigration courts.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.

During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization subject to five year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry to America, rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws, and processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.

Extreme Hardship is a legal term in the United States of America's Immigration Law.

<i>Adams v. Howerton</i>

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition met the standard at the time for rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.

There have long been ideological restrictions on naturalization in United States law. Nativism and anti-anarchism at the turn of the 20th century, the red scare in the 1920s, and further fears against communism in the 1950s each shaped United States nationality law. Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods and prior still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism.

Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving deportation law and procedure. The case involved a rule adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals for determining the eligibility of certain long-term resident aliens, when they are facing deportation because of a prior criminal conviction, to apply to the Attorney General for relief. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court invalidated the BIA's "comparable-grounds rule" as arbitrary and capricious, holding that it had no rational relation to the merits of an alien's claim for remaining in the United States, nor to the policy and purposes of the immigration laws.

The United States policy regarding same-sex immigration denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Williams (commissioner)</span>

William Williams (1862–1947) was the federal commissioner of immigration for the Port of New York, from 1902 to 1905 and again, from 1909 to 1914. His office was on Ellis Island, which was the location of the nation's most important immigrant inspection station.

Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lawful permanent resident, who departs from and returns to the country as a seaman on an American ship, retains procedural due process rights and cannot be deported under 8 CFR § 175.57(b) without a hearing.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Stein, Marc. "Marc Stein: Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1967)". OutHistory.org. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
  2. 1 2 3 Boutilier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118 (1967).
  3. ↑ Davis, Tracy. "Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States". Washington College of Law. Archived from the original on August 22, 2002. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  4. ↑ Stein, Marc. "Forgetting and Remembering a Deported Alien". History News Network. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "Record from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Boutilier v. INS, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1966, No. 440" (PDF). 1966. Retrieved November 20, 2019.
  6. ↑ Leonard, Arthur S. (December 16, 2013). Sexuality and the Law: American Law and Society. Routledge. pp. 642–646. ISBN   9781135755027.
  7. 1 2 3 Boutilier v. INS, 363F.2d488 (2d Cir. 1966).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.