United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy

Supreme Court of United States
338 U.S. 537 (1950)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The executive branch, acting pursuant to a congressional grant of authority, may exclude an alien seeking to enter the United States without a hearing on the basis of confidential information that the alien's admission would be prejudicial to the public interest. For an alien seeking admission, the procedure authorized by Congress is due process.

Facts:

Ellen Knauff, a German-born woman, served honorably with the British Royal Air Force from 1943 to 1946.
After her military service, she secured civilian employment with the United States War Department in Germany, where her work was rated 'very good' and 'excellent.'
On February 28, 1948, with the permission of the U.S. Commanding General in Frankfurt, she married Kurt W. Knauff, a naturalized U.S. citizen and honorably discharged WWII veteran.
At the time of the marriage, Kurt Knauff was a civilian employee of the U.S. Army in Germany.
On August 14, 1948, Ellen Knauff arrived in the United States seeking admission for the purpose of naturalization under the War Brides Act.
Upon arrival, she was temporarily excluded and detained at Ellis Island.
The Attorney General, acting on confidential information, found that her admission would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States and entered a final order of exclusion without a hearing.

Procedural Posture:

Kurt W. Knauff, on behalf of his wife Ellen Knauff, instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to challenge the exclusion order.
The District Court, as the court of first instance, dismissed the writ of habeas corpus.
Knauff appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

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 have the authority under the Act of June 21, 1941, to exclude the alien spouse of a U.S. citizen veteran without a hearing, on the grounds that her admission would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, notwithstanding the provisions of the War Brides Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Minton

Yes. The Attorney General has the authority to exclude the alien spouse of a U.S. citizen without a hearing based on confidential information. The admission of aliens is a privilege granted by the sovereign, not a right, and the power to exclude aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty inherent in the executive's power to control foreign affairs. Congress delegated this power to the executive during the national emergency, and whatever procedure is authorized by Congress constitutes due process for an alien seeking entry. The War Brides Act waived certain immigration requirements but did not remove the condition that an applicant be 'otherwise admissible under the immigration laws,' which includes security-based exclusions. Therefore, the Attorney General's action was a valid exercise of his Congressionally-delegated authority.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter

No. The Attorney General does not have the authority to summarily exclude a war bride without a hearing. The War Brides Act was a congressional 'bounty' granted to American soldiers, not to their alien spouses, and it made significant exceptions to deeply-rooted immigration policies. To construe the phrase 'if otherwise admissible' to permit the bounty to be arbitrarily taken away by an executive official acting on secret information frustrates the benevolent purpose of the Act. Such a harsh result should not be inferred from the statute's text, as 'The letter killeth,' and considerations of national security could be protected by less drastic means, such as an in camera hearing.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson

No. Congress has not authorized the 'abrupt and brutal exclusion of the wife of an American citizen without a hearing.' While Congress has the constitutional power to exclude aliens, the procedure used here is a menace to free institutions, as it relies on secret evidence that is abhorrent to the principles of a free society. To force a citizen to choose between his country and his wife based on unchallengeable, secret accusations is a profound injustice. Congress would need to use far more explicit language to authorize an administrative officer to break up an American family without notice of the charges or an opportunity for the accused to be heard.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the plenary power doctrine, which grants the political branches of government (Congress and the Executive) nearly absolute authority over immigration matters, particularly the admission of aliens. The Court established that for non-citizens seeking initial entry, procedural due process rights are determined solely by what Congress decides to provide, which can be as little as no process at all. This ruling creates a stark distinction between the constitutional rights of aliens seeking entry and those already within the United States, setting a powerful precedent for judicial deference to executive action in immigration cases involving national security.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature