Lexplug logoLexplug

Tutun v. United States

Unknown
270 U.S. 568, 1926 U.S. LEXIS 432, 46 S. Ct. 425 (1926)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A decision by a federal district court granting or denying a petition for naturalization is a 'final decision' in a 'case' within the meaning of the Judicial Code, and is therefore reviewable by a federal circuit court of appeals.


Facts:

  • An alien, Tutun, submitted a petition to a federal district court to be admitted to citizenship in the United States.
  • The petition was for naturalization, a process governed by federal statute.
  • The United States was a potential adverse party in this proceeding.
  • The district court held a final hearing on the petition, where the applicant and witnesses were examined under oath.

Procedural Posture:

  • An alien filed a petition for naturalization in a federal district court.
  • The district court entered a final order denying the petition.
  • The petitioner appealed the denial to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals, being uncertain of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, certified the question to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

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 a federal circuit court of appeals have jurisdiction to review a final order of a federal district court denying an alien's petition for naturalization?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brandeis

Yes, a circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying a petition for naturalization. A naturalization proceeding is a 'case' and the district court's order is a 'final decision,' bringing it within the appellate jurisdiction granted to circuit courts of appeals by Congress. The court reasoned that although naturalization is a privilege conferred by Congress, the process established to attain it is a formal judicial proceeding. It is conducted according to the regular course of legal procedure, involves a claim arising under federal law, presents a matter upon which judicial power can act, and results in a final judgment. The term 'exclusive jurisdiction' in the Naturalization Act was intended to remove jurisdiction from minor state courts, not to preclude appellate review. Therefore, a naturalization proceeding qualifies as a 'case' subject to the general grant of appellate jurisdiction over 'all cases' from the district courts.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the nature of naturalization proceedings as judicial, rather than purely administrative, acts. It establishes that applicants for citizenship have a right to appellate review in federal courts, affording them the same procedural safeguards as litigants in other civil cases. By confirming that a petition for naturalization constitutes a 'case,' the Court ensures that denials can be scrutinized for legal error, promoting uniformity and fairness in the application of naturalization laws across the country.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Tutun v. United States (1926) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Tutun v. United States