BARTON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
v.
SENTNER; AND SENTNER V. BARTON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
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 affirmed a lower court decision invalidating provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act's detention authority, relying on its recent decision in United States v. Witkovich that had narrowly construed the Attorney General's power to question aliens regarding their availability for deportation. Two dissenting justices argued that the summary affirmance improperly extended Witkovich beyond clause (3) to strike down additional clauses (1) and (4) of the statute without full briefing or argument, thereby eliminating important tools for controlling subversive aliens pending deportation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194.
Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an opportunity to present the Government’s side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242 (d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1252 (d)(3), “to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens . . . .” It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of § 242 (d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of § 242 (d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich.
Reported below: 145 F. Supp. 569.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1973)…a decision on the merits having precedential value. E. g., Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 400 U.S. 932, 9.35, 91 S.Ct. 235, 27 L.Ed.2d 240 (Justice White dissenting from the summary affirmance); Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (Justices Burton and Clark dissenting from the summary affirmance). See Stern and Gressman, Supreme C.ourt Practice 197 (4th ed. 1969). Therefore, we conclude that the aforementioned Supreme Court affirmances foreclo…
-
Nat'l Ctr. FOR Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 913 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1990)…proper." It also required the alien to “conform to such reasonable written restrictions on his conduct or activities as are prescribed by the Attorney General in his case.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). In Witkovich and its companion case, Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. [*1372] 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (1957), the Supreme Court limited the apparently broad discretion granted the Attorney General under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d), holding that conditions must be related to ensuring the alien’s appearance for deportation…1 / 3
-
Siminoff v. Esperdy, 267 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1959)…ailability of a deportable alien for deportation when that event should become feasible; and as this supervision may of necessity drag on into a lifetime surveillance, the powers granted by the section must be sparingly exercised. Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901, affirming Sentner v. Colarelli, D.C.E.D.Mo., 145 F.Supp. 569; United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194, 77 S.Ct. 779, 1 L.Ed.2d 765. The Sentner and Witkovich cases also make clear that orders issued under § 242(d) are…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1957)