TOD, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION,
v.
WALDMAN ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court modified its prior decision in an immigration case involving the Commissioner of Immigration and respondents Waldman and others, granting two additional modifications to its order: permitting an application for discretionary relief under the Immigration Act for one respondent to provide security against becoming a public charge, and allowing the respondents to apply for bail pending compliance with the Court's mandate.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court.
By opinion handed down November 17, 1924, ante, 113, this Court sustained the contention of the Commissioner of Immigration that the respondents should not have been discharged under the writ of habeas corpus as directed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, but agreed with that court in its criticism of the action of the immigration authorities in dealing with the respondents here, and made modifications and additions to the order of that court. Counsel for the respondents in a petition for rehearing n'ow ask additional modifications. Of these, the Court deems it proper to grant two.
1st. Nothing in the order of this Court shall prejudice an application on behalf of Zenia Waldman to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor under § 21 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874, 891, to accept satisfactory security against her becoming a public charge and on its being furnished to admit her to this country.
2nd. Nothing in the order of this Court shall prejudice an application for release on bail of the respondents pending compliance with the mandate of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (U.S. 2018)…ere would be no need for the Attorney General to take them into custody again. Struggling to prop up its implausible interpretation, the dissent looks to our prior decisions for aid, but that too fails. The best case it can find is Tod v. Waldman, 266 U.S. 547, 45 S.Ct. 193, 69 L.Ed. 195 (1925), a grant of a petition for rehearing in which the Court clarified that "[n]othing in [its original] order ... shall prejudice an application for release on bail of the respondents pending compliance with the mandat…1 / 3