EX PARTE GRUBER
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 rejected an application for mandamus seeking to compel a U.S. Consul General in Montreal to visa a passport for a Russian citizen, holding that the Court lacked original jurisdiction because the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction over cases "affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" applies only to foreign diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the United States, not to U.S. officials representing the country abroad.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an application for leave to file a petition and for a rule directing Albert Halstead, Consul General of. the United States at Montreal, Canada, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding -him to visa the passport or the certificate of origin and identity presented to him by one Rosa Porter, a citizen of Russia, who recently arrived in Montreal from Russia and from whom petitioner, a relative, desires a visit in the United States of several months’ duration. We do not review the averments of the petition, since, other questions aside, it is clear that this court is without original jurisdiction.
Article III, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides that this court shall have original jurisdiction “ in all cases . affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” Manifestly, this refers to diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the United States by foreign powers, not to those representing this country abroad. Milward v. McSaul, 17 Fed. Cas. 425, 426, No.
9624. The ’provision, no doubt, was inserted in view of the important and sometimes delicate nature of our relation.*, and intercourse with foreign governments. It is a privilege, not of the official, but of the sovereign or government which' he represents, accorded from high considerations of public policy, considerations which plainly do not apply to the United States in its own territory. See generally Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276, 284; Marshall v. Critico, 9 East 447; Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 576, 578; The Federalist, No. 80, Ford’s Ed., pp. 531, 532-533, 537.
The application is denied for want of original jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haddad v. United States, 349 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1965)…many others show, the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court here relied upon is not exclusive. Furthermore, the provision of Article 3, Section 2, here invoked, does not relate to a United States Consul. See Ex parte Gruber, 1925, 269 U.S. 302, 46 S.Ct. 112, 70 L.Ed. 280. 5. It is contended that the venue was not properly laid. There is also nothing in this contention. Here the offense was completed in Jordan by the delivery of the letter to the Consul (see 18 U.S.C. § 3238), but it was…
-
Farnsworth v. Sanford, 115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940)…s a witness, and his standing as a man might all be involved, but he is held not affected. A broad construction of the words was again denied when it was held that they did not include the ministers and consuls of the United States. Ex parte Gruber, 269 U.S. 302, 46 S.Ct. 112, 70 L.Ed. 280. And in Ohio v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489, it was held these constitutional provisions did not exclude from State court jurisdiction a divorce suit against a foreign consul. We think on the arraignm…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276 (U.S. 1833)