Harisiades v. Shaughnessy | |
---|---|
Argued 5 December, 1951 Decided 10 March, 1952 | |
Full case name | Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization |
Citations | 342 U.S. 580 ( more ) |
Holding | |
Affirmed ruling of the lower court; The Alien Registration Act of 1940's authorization of deportation for legal residents based on Communist Party membership, even past, does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment, Due Process, nor the Ex Post Facto Clause. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Jackson, joined by Minton, Reed, Vinson, and Burton |
Concurrence | Frankfurter |
Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that the Alien Registration Act of 1940's authorization of deportation of legal resident for membership in Communist parties, even past, did not violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, nor the constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause. [1] [2] [3]
The case was a consolidation of three similar cases, Mascitti v. McGrath, Coleman v. McGrath, and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, all brought by legal residents of the United States who were in the process of being deported under the Alien Registration Act for their participation in Communist political parties. [1]
The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, authorizes the deportation of legal residents of the United States as a penalty for advocacy to overthrow the government under title 2. Membership of the Communist Party was at the time treated automatically as advocacy for overthrow of the government.
The 1951 Supreme Court case Dennis v. United States upheld prosecutions under the Smith Act for mere advocacy, as opposed to direct action, to violently overthrow the government as constitutional. [4]
In the United States, legal residents, although not citizens, still enjoy most of the same constitutional rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, all people within the jurisdiction of the U.S. are promised equal protection under the law. [5] But, there are some rights and privileges legal residents do not have, such as voting in federal elections and running for public office. The First Amendment does protect non-citizens, but not in all situations. For example, people applying for residency, visas, or citizenship will be asked and investigated about their affiliations and can be denied based on what would normally be protected under the freedom of association, speech, etc. [6] [7]
Harisiades was a Greek immigrant who came to the United States at 13 years old with his father in 1916. At the time of this case, he was married with two kids; his wife and kids were all American citizens. He joined the Communist Party (then the Worker's Party) in 1925 and was kicked out of the organization in 1939 as a part of the party's attempt to protect its non-citizen members, whose membership put them in danger of deportation. [1] Harisiades was represented by Carol Weiss King. [8]
Mascitti was an Italian immigrant who came to the country in 1920 at 16 years old. At the time of the case, he was married to a fellow legal resident and had one American-born child. Between 1923 and 1929, he was a member of the Communist Party or its youth wing. [1]
Coleman was a Russian immigrant who came to the United States in 1914 at the age of 13. At the time of the case, she was married to an American citizen and had three American-born children. [1]
All plaintiffs were members of the parties in question prior to the passing of the Alien Registration Act in 1940.
J. Howard McGrath was U.S. Attorney's General from 1949 to 1952. Edward J. Shaughnessy was the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization. [1]
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy on April 4, 1950. [9]
The cases of Harisiades, Mascitti, and Coleman, all legal residents, were consolidated into one due to the similarities in facts. The ruling was 6-2, with Justices Douglas and Black in Dissent. Justice Tom Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. [1]
Justice Robert Jackson wrote for the majority. The majority affirmed the lower court's ruling on the case, rejecting the plaintiff's request to prevent their deportations. It concluded that the law and its application in these cases did not deprive the residents of liberty without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment, constitute an overstep by Congress, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech/assembly clause, cause severe hardship as to violate the Due Process Clause, nor constitute an unconstitutional '' ex post facto '' law. [1]
Justice Feliz Frankfurter wrote in concurrence with the majority opinion. [1]
Justice William Douglas wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, with which Justice Hugo Black concurred. [1] His primary argument was that the Alien Registration Act punished past belief and ideology, not conduct, and therefore violated the deportee's freedom of speech.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy had an impact on both immigration and First Amendment law. [10] [11]
The Alien and Sedition Acts were a set of four laws enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1798 increased the requirements to seek citizenship, the Alien Friends Act of 1798 allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gave the president additional powers to detain non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized false and malicious statements about the federal government. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act expired after a set number of years, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act, as amended, is still in effect as 50 U.S.C. ch. 3.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, the McCarran Act after its principal sponsor Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), or the Concentration Camp Law, is a United States federal law. Congress enacted it over President Harry Truman's veto. It required Communist organizations to register with the federal government. The 1965 U.S Supreme Court ruling in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board saw much of the act's Communist registration requirement abolished. The emergency detention provision was repealed when the Non-Detention Act of 1971 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The act's Subversive Activities Control Board, which enforced the law's provision calling for investigations of persons engaging in "subversive activities," would also be abolished in 1972.
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
The Geary Act was a United States law that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. It was written by California Representative Thomas J. Geary and was passed by Congress on May 5, 1892. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year of hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code, governs immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It came into effect on June 27, 1952. The legislation consolidated various immigration laws into a single text. Officially titled the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is often referred to as the 1952 law to distinguish it from the 1965 legislation. This law increased the quota for Europeans outside Northern and Western Europe, gave the Department of State authority to reject entries affecting native wages, eliminated 1880s bans on contract labor, set a minimum quota of one hundred visas per country, and promoted family reunification by exempting citizens' children and spouses from numerical caps.
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.
United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because at least one of their parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.
The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3rd session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights. It is the first case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad.
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950), is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that invalidated Indiana's loyalty oath requirement.
The Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders in New York City from 1949 to 1958 were the result of US federal government prosecutions in the postwar period and during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Leaders of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) were accused of violating the Smith Act, a statute that prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. The defendants argued that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of association protected their membership in a political party. Appeals from these trials reached the US Supreme Court, which ruled on issues in Dennis v. United States (1951) and Yates v. United States (1957).
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 the 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.
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.
Immigrant surveillance refers to the practice of tracking both illegal and legal immigrants through several methods, some of which include electronic verification, border surveillance, or federal raids. Historically, countries such as the United States have required that immigrants carry evidence of citizenship. Controversies within immigrant surveillance in the United States involve the alleged racial profiling committed by police departments and negligence found in detention centers. Laws concerning surveillance and immigration vary by country but terrorist attacks have made the issue more prevalent.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.