Kent v. Dulles
357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Secretary of State's statutory authority to grant or deny passports is limited to grounds concerning citizenship, allegiance, or engagement in unlawful conduct. Absent explicit authorization from Congress, the Secretary may not deny a passport to a citizen based on their political beliefs or associations.
Facts:
- Rockwell Kent applied for a U.S. passport to visit England and attend a meeting in Finland.
- The Director of the Passport Office denied Kent's application, alleging that he was a Communist and adhered to the Communist Party line.
- As a condition for reconsideration, the State Department required Kent to submit a sworn affidavit stating whether he was then or had ever been a member of the Communist Party.
- Kent refused to submit the affidavit, asserting that the requirement was unlawful and a matter of conscience.
- Dr. Walter Briehl, a psychiatrist, also applied for a passport and was similarly required to submit an affidavit regarding Communist Party membership.
- The Passport Office tentatively disapproved Briehl's application based on allegations of his Communist affiliations and activities.
- Briehl also refused to provide the affidavit, arguing that his political affiliations were irrelevant to his right to a passport.
- Due to their refusal to file the required affidavits, the State Department ceased consideration of both Kent's and Briehl's passport applications.
Procedural Posture:
- Rockwell Kent sued the Secretary of State in U.S. District Court seeking declaratory relief.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of State.
- Dr. Walter Briehl filed a separate complaint in the same District Court, which dismissed his case.
- Kent and Briehl appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which consolidated their cases.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's decisions with a divided vote.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 the Secretary of State have the statutory authority to deny a citizen a passport for refusing to submit an affidavit regarding their membership in the Communist Party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The Secretary of State's regulations exceed the authority granted by Congress. The right to travel abroad is a personal right and a 'liberty' protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. While Congress delegated discretionary power to the Secretary of State to issue passports, a review of the historical administrative practice reveals this discretion was limited to two categories: (1) questions of citizenship and allegiance, and (2) whether the applicant was engaged in illegal conduct. Denying a passport based on a citizen's beliefs or associations falls outside these traditional grounds. The Court will construe narrowly any delegated powers that curtail such a fundamental right, and absent explicit statutory language from Congress authorizing the denial of passports based on political beliefs, the Secretary of State may not do so.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. The Secretary of State is authorized by Congress to deny a passport when travel abroad would be inimical to national security. The legislative history of travel-control statutes, particularly during wartime and national emergencies, demonstrates a clear congressional intent to grant the Secretary wide discretion to protect national security. The ongoing Cold War constituted a national emergency, making this broader authority relevant. The State Department has a documented history of denying passports on national security grounds, including to Communists. By re-enacting the travel-control statute in 1952 without limiting this established practice, Congress implicitly approved the Secretary's discretionary authority to require information about Communist Party membership as a prerequisite for issuing a passport.
Analysis:
This decision established the right to international travel as a fundamental 'liberty' protected by the Fifth Amendment. It significantly reined in the discretionary power of the executive branch in the area of foreign policy, especially where it intersects with individual rights. The Court applied the canon of constitutional avoidance, interpreting the statute narrowly to avoid ruling on whether Congress could constitutionally restrict travel based on political beliefs. This ruling sets a precedent that requires a clear and specific delegation from Congress before the executive can infringe upon fundamental constitutional liberties, reinforcing the separation of powers.
Unlock the full brief for Kent v. Dulles