Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521 (1950)

United States ex Rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy

No. 3

Argued November 16-17, 1949
Decided January 16, 1950 *
338 U.S. 521

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

At a time when he was a naturalized citizen of the United States, a person was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917. Thereafter, in a denaturalization proceeding, his citizenship was revoked and his certificate of naturalization was canceled on the ground that he had procured it by fraud. Thereafter, he was ordered deported under the Act of May 10, 1920, which provided for the deportation of "aliens who, since August 1, 1914, have been or may hereafter be convicted of any violation or conspiracy to violate" the Espionage Act of 1917 and who are found to be "undesirable residents" of the United States.

Held: his deportation was authorized by the 1920 Act. Pp. 522-533.

(a) The Act of May 10, 1920, is not limited to aliens who never have been naturalized, nor does it exempt persons whose certificates of naturalization have been canceled for fraud in procurement. P. 528.

(b) Congress may validly provide for the deportation of aliens on grounds of past misconduct. P. 529.

(c) The Act of May 10, 1920, does not require that an alien whose deportation it authorizes shall have had the status of an alien at the time of the conviction on which the order of deportation is based. Pp. 529-531.

(d) There is nothing in the legislative history of the Act of May 10, 1920, that suggests a congressional intent to distinguish between aliens who never had been naturalized and those who had obtained naturalization by fraud and lost it by court decree. Pp. 531-533.

(e) The Act of May 10, 1920, is not rendered inapplicable to a conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 by reason of the fact that, in 1940, the penalty for violation of that Act was increased. P. 533, n. 20.

167 F.2d 659, 171 F.2d 773, affirmed.

In No. 3, the District Court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus in a proceeding challenging the validity of the relator’s detention under a deportation order. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 167 F.2d 659. An order of this Court denying certiorari, 335 U.S. 867, was subsequently vacated, and certiorari was granted. 337 U.S. 955. Affirmed, p. 533.

In No. 82, the District Court dismissed a writ of habeas corpus in a proceeding challenging the validity of the relator’s detention under a deportation order. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 171 F.2d 773. This Court granted certiorari. 337 U.S. 955. Affirmed, p. 533.