United States v. Witkovich
353 U.S. 194, 1 L. Ed. 2d 765, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1000 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The authority granted to the Attorney General under § 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to question aliens under a final order of deportation is not unlimited. This authority is restricted to questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised of the alien's continued availability for deportation, a narrow construction adopted to avoid serious constitutional doubts.
Facts:
- An alien, Witkovich, had a final order of deportation issued against him.
- As his deportation was not effected within six months, he was placed under an order of supervision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) pursuant to federal statute.
- As part of this supervision, an INS officer required Witkovich to answer a series of questions under oath.
- The questions concerned Witkovich's political associations, personal acquaintances, attendance at meetings, and subscriptions to publications, including whether he was a member of the Communist Party and if he subscribed to the Daily Worker.
- Witkovich wilfully failed to answer these questions.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Witkovich in the United States District Court for wilfully failing to provide information required under an order of supervision.
- Witkovich filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it failed to state an offense and that the underlying statute was unconstitutional.
- The District Court initially ruled the statute was constitutional but, after further motions, issued a second opinion dismissing the indictment.
- The District Court held that the statute only authorized questions relevant to ensuring an alien's availability for deportation and found the government's questions were not relevant to that purpose.
- The United States, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal of the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States under the Criminal Appeals Act.
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 § 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorize the Attorney General to require an alien under a final order of deportation to answer questions about his associations and activities that are not relevant to his availability for deportation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. Section 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not grant the Attorney General unbounded authority to question aliens under supervision; rather, it authorizes only those questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised of the alien's continued availability for deportation. The Court adopts this narrow construction based on the canon of constitutional avoidance. Reading the statute's broad language literally—authorizing questions about activities and 'such other information, whether or not related... as the Attorney General may deem fit'—would raise serious constitutional questions about an administrative officer's power to inhibit the liberties of a 'person' who may be subject to lifetime supervision. The surrounding provisions of § 242(d) all concern availability for deportation, suggesting a common purpose. Furthermore, legislative history indicates Congress's unwillingness to enact provisions that would face constitutional challenges. To avoid adjudicating these constitutional doubts, the Court construes the statute narrowly, limiting its scope to its core purpose of ensuring the alien remains available for departure.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes. The statute's plain language and legislative intent authorize the Attorney General to ask a broad range of questions, including those related to the alien's subversive activities that formed the basis for the deportation order. The majority's narrow construction deletes the 'crux' of the subsection and creates an anomalous result where an alien under a final deportation order is subject to less scrutiny than other aliens who must answer broad registration questions. The purpose of the statute was not merely to ensure availability for deportation but also to address the danger to public safety and national security posed by undeportable aliens. The Attorney General needs information about whether the deportee has resumed his past subversive conduct to properly exercise supervisory duties. The Court improperly invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance, as the mere act of questioning does not raise a constitutional issue.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant application of the canon of constitutional avoidance, demonstrating the judiciary's power to narrowly construe a statute to prevent potential infringement on individual liberties. By limiting the Attorney General's broad statutory authority, the Court protected the First Amendment and due process rights of aliens under long-term supervision from becoming subject to unchecked administrative surveillance. This precedent requires Congress to be explicit if it wishes to grant such expansive powers and signals that courts will be skeptical of broad delegations of authority that could impact fundamental rights, particularly in the context of immigration supervision that may last indefinitely.
