Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 (1956)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 (1956)
Brownell v. Tom We Shung No. 43 Argued November 13, 1956 Decided December 17, 1956 352 U.S. 180
CERTIORARI TO TE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Under § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, an alien whose exclusion has been ordered administratively under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and who neither claims citizenship nor holds a certificate of identity issued under § 360(b) of that Act, may obtain judicial review of such order by an action in a federal district court for a declaratory judgment. Pp. 181-186.
1. Unless the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is to the contrary, exclusion orders may be challenged -- either by habeas corpus proceedings or by declaratory judgment actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. Pp. 182-184.
2. The provision of § 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that the decision of a special inquiry officer excluding an alien from admission into the United States "shall be final unless reversed on appeal to the Attorney General" refers only to administrative finality, and it does not limit challenges of such decisions to habeas corpus proceedings. Pp. 184-185.
3. The conclusion here reached is in full accord with reports made to Congress by those sponsoring and managing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 on the floor of each house of Congress. Pp. 185-186.
4. Whether an alien seeks judicial review of an exclusion order by a habeas corpus proceeding or by an action for a declaratory judgment, the scope of the review is that of existing law. P. 186.
97 U.S.App.D.C. 25, 227 F.2d 40, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 (1956) in 352 U.S. 180 352 U.S. 181. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1LHE5I5EIK7ZW2N.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 (1956), in 352 U.S. 180, page 352 U.S. 181. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1LHE5I5EIK7ZW2N.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180 (1956). cited in 1956, 352 U.S. 180, pp.352 U.S. 181. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1LHE5I5EIK7ZW2N.
|