Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
1967 U.S. LEXIS 1400, 387 U.S. 118, 18 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'psychopathic personality' in § 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 encompasses homosexuals, as evidenced by clear legislative intent. The statute is not void for vagueness because the fair warning requirement of due process does not apply to a Congressionally mandated standard for admission based on characteristics an alien possesses at the time of entry.
Facts:
- Clive Boutilier, a Canadian national, first entered the United States in 1955 at the age of 21.
- Beginning at age 14, about seven years before his first entry, Boutilier engaged in homosexual relations three to four times a year.
- Prior to his entry, Boutilier had also engaged in heterosexual relations on three or four occasions.
- In 1963, while applying for U.S. citizenship, Boutilier submitted an affidavit admitting to a 1959 arrest for sodomy.
- In a subsequent 1964 affidavit, Boutilier detailed his history of homosexual activity, which had continued at a rate of three to four times a year since his entry into the U.S.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Public Health Service issued a certificate stating that at the time of his entry, Clive Boutilier was afflicted with a 'psychopathic personality, sexual deviate.'
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) then instituted deportation proceedings against Boutilier.
- A Special Inquiry Officer, acting as the administrative trial judge, found Boutilier deportable under § 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Boutilier appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal without an opinion.
- Boutilier (petitioner) sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against the INS (respondent).
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, upholding the deportation order.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Boutilier's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which makes aliens 'afflicted with psychopathic personality' excludable, unconstitutionally permit the deportation of a homosexual alien on the ground that the term is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the statute does not unconstitutionally permit the deportation of the alien. Congress clearly intended the term 'psychopathic personality' to include homosexuals for immigration purposes, and the void-for-vagueness doctrine is inapplicable to an exclusionary standard based on characteristics possessed at the time of entry. The legislative history of the Act indicates 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that Congress intended the phrase to cover homosexuals. Committee reports explicitly state that a separate clause excluding 'homosexuals or sex perverts' was removed because the Public Health Service advised that the term 'psychopathic personality' was sufficiently broad to achieve the same goal. The constitutional requirement of 'fair warning' central to the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply here because the statute does not regulate or sanction post-entry conduct; it establishes a standard for admission based on a characteristic possessed at the moment of entry. Boutilier is being deported for a condition he had at the time he entered, not for anything he did afterwards. Congress has plenary power to set rules for the admission of aliens, and the court's role is to interpret Congressional intent, not to apply a clinical or medical definition of the term.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the statute as applied is unconstitutional. The term 'psychopathic personality' is an inherently treacherous and vague label that fails to provide the fair notice required by due process, especially when the penalty is as severe as deportation. The term has no settled medical or legal definition, with experts disagreeing widely on its meaning; it is a 'grab-bag' term that can be used to punish anyone who is unpopular or nonconformist. Citing the work of Alfred Kinsey, the dissent notes that homosexual experience is widespread, and it is not credible that Congress intended to deport a large segment of the population, which has included many of history's most creative and distinguished individuals. Deportation is equivalent to 'banishment or exile,' and due process demands that the standard for such a penalty be clear and precise, which 'psychopathic personality' is not. The statute requires an alien to be 'afflicted,' implying a dominating, lifelong pattern of behavior, not just occasional acts. Boutilier's own psychiatric evaluations concluded he was not a psychopath, and he was entitled to a meaningful hearing on this medical question rather than being deported based on a vague label.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. This dissent simply states agreement with the dissenting opinion from the lower Court of Appeals.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies extreme judicial deference to Congress's plenary power over immigration. The Court prioritized legislative history over the plain or medical meaning of a statutory term, cementing a legal framework for excluding individuals based on their sexual orientation. By finding the void-for-vagueness doctrine inapplicable to admission standards, the Court narrowed due process protections for aliens in this context. The case became a cornerstone of anti-gay immigration policy for decades, representing a significant historical moment in the legal struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, until Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990 to remove this provision.
