Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei
345 U.S. 206 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An alien on the threshold of initial entry into the United States, even a returning former resident, has no constitutional right to a hearing to challenge their exclusion on national security grounds, and their indefinite detention at the border is permissible when no other country will accept them.
Facts:
- Ignatz Mezei, an alien, resided in the United States from 1923 to 1948.
- In May 1948, Mezei traveled to Europe, intending to visit his dying mother in Rumania.
- After being denied entry to Rumania, he remained in Hungary for approximately 19 months.
- Mezei obtained a quota immigration visa from the American Consul in Budapest and sailed from France to New York, arriving on February 9, 1950.
- Upon his arrival, an immigration inspector temporarily excluded him from the United States.
- The Attorney General made the exclusion permanent, finding that Mezei's entry would be prejudicial to the public interest for security reasons based on confidential information.
- All attempts to send Mezei to another country failed; France, Great Britain, Hungary, and numerous Latin-American countries refused to admit him.
- As a result of his exclusion by the U.S. and rejection by other nations, Mezei was indefinitely detained at Ellis Island.
Procedural Posture:
- Ignatz Mezei filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to challenge his detention.
- The District Court sustained the writ, ruling the continued detention was unlawful, and ordered Mezei's temporary release on a $5,000 bond.
- The government (Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration) appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment but directed the lower court to reconsider the terms of the parole.
- On remand, the District Court entered a modified order reducing the bond and permitting Mezei to travel and reside in Buffalo, New York.
- The government successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 Attorney General's continued detention of a returning resident alien, who is permanently excluded from the United States on security grounds but cannot be removed to another country, violate the alien's statutory or constitutional rights to due process, thereby allowing a court to order their release on bond?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the Attorney General's continued detention of an excluded alien does not violate any statutory or constitutional right. The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute of the political branches of government, largely immune from judicial review. An alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing than an alien who has already passed through our gates; for an alien denied entry, the procedure authorized by Congress is due process. Mezei's prolonged absence broke his continuous residence, assimilating his status to that of an entrant alien. His physical presence on Ellis Island is not a legal entry into the United States; it is a temporary harborage that confers no additional rights, and for legal purposes, he is treated as if stopped at the border. Therefore, the Attorney General may lawfully exclude him without a hearing based on confidential information and his resulting detention is a continuation of that valid exclusion.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, the indefinite detention of the alien without a hearing constitutes a deprivation of liberty in violation of procedural due process. While the government has broad power to exclude aliens, this power does not authorize indefinite imprisonment as a means of enforcement. When confinement is no longer temporary or ancillary to the process of removal but becomes an end in itself, due process requires that the individual be informed of the grounds for their detention and given a fair opportunity to challenge them. To hold a person in custody for secret reasons known only to an executive official is a practice reminiscent of totalitarian regimes and is contrary to the principles of procedural fairness that are the indispensable essence of liberty under our system of law.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the alien's continued imprisonment without a hearing violates due process of law. No society is free where one person's liberty depends on the arbitrary and unreviewable will of a government official. The principles of the Bill of Rights demand that no person, including an alien, be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This means that executive officials cannot imprison people based on secret information without accountability to the courts. The alien should not be deprived of his liberty indefinitely except as the result of a fair, open court hearing where evidence is appraised by a neutral arbiter, not by the prosecutor.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'entry fiction' doctrine, which holds that an alien physically present on U.S. territory, such as Ellis Island, is legally considered to be at the border and has not 'entered' the United States. This distinction is critical, as the Court affirms that aliens seeking entry receive far fewer due process protections than resident aliens facing deportation. The decision grants the executive branch sweeping authority to exclude aliens on national security grounds using confidential evidence, insulating such decisions from meaningful judicial review and sanctioning indefinite detention as a consequence of exclusion.
Unlock the full brief for Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei