No, the government's decision is allowed. Even though Americans have a right to hear different ideas, the government has almost total power over who it lets into the country. As long as the government gives a reason that seems legitimate on its face (like 'he broke the rules last time'), the courts will not question it or weigh it against free speech rights.

Yes, this violates free speech. The government shouldn't act as a 'thought police' and block people just because it doesn't like their ideas. The excuse about Mandel breaking the rules was flimsy and seemed like a way to censor him. Americans have a right to hear all sorts of viewpoints.

Yes, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment. The right to hear ideas is just as important as the right to express them. The government's reason for blocking Mandel was a sham, and the Court shouldn't just blindly accept it. Banning a person because of their ideas is like banning a book, and the government isn't allowed to do that.

The Supreme Court said that when the government has a real, proper reason to keep someone out of the country, the courts won't investigate that decision further or weigh it against the free speech rights of Americans who want to meet with the excluded person. The Court recognized free speech was involved but said the government's strong power to control who enters the country wins out.

Justice Douglas said Americans' free speech rights to hear a foreign speaker should beat the government's choice unless the government has an extremely convincing reason. He said the government shouldn't get to pick and choose which ideas can come into the country. Just talking about communist ideas, without encouraging people to break the law right away, isn't enough reason to limit free speech.

Justice Marshall, along with Justice Brennan, disagreed because they felt the government didn't give a strong enough reason to limit the American professors' free speech rights. They said the government's power to keep out foreigners doesn't apply the same way when the rights of American citizens are harmed. The government's only reason - that Mandel supported communist ideas - was an improper attempt to control the spread of ideas.

In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to `receive information and ideas

The Court held that when the Executive exercises this [exclusion] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.

The Bertrand court held that decisions under 8 USC § 1182 (d)(5) must be made " `on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.'"

—the Supreme Court recognized that First Amendment rights were implicated in the government's denial of a visa to an invited foreign lecturer.

The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.

It is for this reason that the First Amendment protects not only the dissemination but also the receipt of information and ideas.

The Court without exception has sustained Congress'`plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden

We also agree that the Supreme Court has in certain cases recognized the rights of listeners regardless of whether the rights of the speakers were protected.

Mandel, which involved a First Amendment challenge by United States citizens to the Attorney General's visa waiver denial for a foreign journalist who was invited for a speaking tour.

—noting that an unadmitted and nonresident alien has "no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise

No, the Attorney General's refusal to grant a waiver does not violate the First Amendment rights of the American citizens. When the Executive exercises its delegated power to exclude an alien and provides a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for doing so, courts will not intervene. The Court acknowledged that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, and that these rights were implicated. However, it held that this interest is subordinate to Congress's plenary power over immigration, a power it has delegated in part to the Executive Branch. The Court found that the Attorney General's stated reason for the denial—Mandel's alleged abuse of his visa conditions on a prior visit—was facially legitimate and bona fide. Therefore, the Court refused to look behind that reason or to balance it against the First Amendment interests of the American professors.

Yes, the refusal to grant a waiver violates the First Amendment. The Attorney General's power to exclude aliens should not extend to ideological censorship or 'thought control.' The First Amendment protects the right of Americans to hear, learn, and know, and the government cannot bar individuals simply because it finds their ideas unacceptable. The discretion granted to the Attorney General should be limited to matters of national security, not the ideological content of a visitor's speech. The reason given for denying Mandel's entry was trivial and appeared to be a pretext for ideological exclusion.

Yes, the government's action unconstitutionally infringes on the First Amendment. The right to hear is inseparable from the right to speak, and by excluding Mandel, the government directly prevents the free interchange of ideas. Government restrictions on First Amendment rights must be justified by a compelling interest, but the 'facially legitimate and bona fide reason' standard articulated by the majority provides an unprecedented and inappropriate level of deference to the Executive. The reason provided by the Attorney General was a 'sham,' as Mandel was not even aware of the conditions on his prior visa. The underlying statute, which excludes aliens based on mere advocacy of communist doctrine without any showing of a threat to national security, cannot justify abridging the First Amendment rights of Americans who wish to hear those ideas.

The Supreme Court held that when the Executive exercises its authority to exclude aliens on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind that exercise of discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the excluded alien. The Court recognized that First Amendment rights were implicated, but ultimately upheld the broad power of Congress to make policies and rules for the exclusion of aliens, which it has delegated conditional exercise of to the Executive Branch.

Justice Douglas argued that the First Amendment rights of Americans who wish to hear a foreign speaker should prevail unless the Government can provide a compelling justification for exclusion beyond a mere "facially legitimate" reason. He contended that the Attorney General should not have the unfettered discretion to pick and choose which ideas are allowed into the country. The mere advocacy of communist doctrine, without incitement to imminent lawless action, cannot justify suppression of free speech.

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented on the grounds that the Government failed to provide a compelling justification for infringing upon the First Amendment rights of the American professors. He argued that the broad latitude afforded to the political branches in matters of alien exclusion does not apply when the constitutional rights of American citizens are at stake. The Government's sole reason for exclusion - Mandel's advocacy of communist doctrine - was an impermissible attempt to restrict the free flow of ideas.

Kleindienst v. Mandel

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot