|
|
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963)
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.
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963)
Rosenberg v. Fleuti No. 248 Argued March 26, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963 374 U.S. 449
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent is an alien who was admitted to this country for permanent residence in 1952 and has been here continuously since, except for a visit of "about a couple hours" duration to Ensenada, Mexico, in 1956. After administrative proceedings, he was ordered deported on the ground that, at the time of his return in 1956, he was "afflicted with psychopathic personality" within the meaning of § 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and, therefore, was excludable under 241(a)(1). The District Court sustained the deportation order, but the Court of Appeals set it aside on the ground that, as applied to respondent, § 212(a)(4) was unconstitutionally vague.
Held:
1. This Court ought not to pass on the constitutionality of § 212(a)(4), as applied to respondent, unless such adjudication is unavoidable, and there is a threshold question as to whether respondent’s return to this country from his afternoon trip to Mexico in 1956 constituted an "entry" within the meaning of § 101(a)(13) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, so as to subject him to deportation for a condition existing at that time, but not at the time of his original admission before the 1952 Act became effective. Pp. 451-452.
2. It would be inconsistent with the general ameliorative purpose of Congress in enacting § 101(a)(13) to hold that an innocent, casual and brief excursion by a resident alien outside this country’s borders was "intended" as a departure disruptive of his resident alien status, so as to subject him to the consequences of an "entry" into the country on his return. Pp. 452-462.
3. Because attention was not previously focused upon the application of §101(a)(13) to this case, and the record contains no detailed description or characterization of respondent’s trip to Mexico in 1956, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration of the application of that section in the light of this opinion. Pp. 462-463.
302 F.2d 652, judgment vacated and case remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) in 374 U.S. 449 374 U.S. 450. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7V6V2SR13GN1PNF.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), in 374 U.S. 449, page 374 U.S. 450. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7V6V2SR13GN1PNF.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963). cited in 1963, 374 U.S. 449, pp.374 U.S. 450. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=7V6V2SR13GN1PNF.
|