Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath
94 L. Ed. 2d 616, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2297, 339 U.S. 33 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Adjudicatory hearings that are required by the constitutional guarantee of due process are considered hearings "required by statute" for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, such hearings must comply with the APA's procedural requirements, including the separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions.
Facts:
- Wong Yang Sung, a native and citizen of China, was a crew member on a ship.
- He was granted shore leave in the United States.
- Wong Yang Sung overstayed his permitted shore leave, making his presence in the country unlawful.
- Immigration officials arrested him on a charge of being unlawfully in the United States.
- A deportation hearing was conducted by an immigrant inspector.
- In this hearing, the presiding immigrant inspector was responsible for interrogating Wong Yang Sung, presenting evidence for the government, and cross-examining witnesses, effectively acting as both prosecutor and adjudicator.
Procedural Posture:
- Following an administrative hearing before an immigrant inspector, Wong Yang Sung was ordered deported.
- The Acting Commissioner of Immigration approved the deportation order.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision.
- Wong Yang Sung filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court, a trial court, held that the Administrative Procedure Act was inapplicable and discharged the writ, remanding Wong Yang Sung to custody.
- Wong Yang Sung (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision 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:
Do the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly those separating prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, apply to deportation hearings conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
Yes, the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act apply to deportation hearings. The APA was enacted to remedy the practice of commingling prosecutorial and adjudicative functions within a single agency, a practice perfectly exemplified by the Immigration Service's deportation hearings. Although the Immigration Act does not explicitly state that a hearing is required, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution necessitates a fair hearing before deportation. A hearing compelled by the Constitution to save a statute from being held invalid is a hearing 'required by statute' within the meaning of the APA. Furthermore, immigrant inspectors do not fall under the APA's § 7(a) exception for 'officers specially provided for by... statute' because the Immigration Act does not specifically designate them as presiding officers for deportation adjudications, only as investigators and examiners. Therefore, deportation hearings must conform to the APA's procedural safeguards, including the use of independent hearing examiners.
Dissenting - Justice Reed
No, the Administrative Procedure Act's specific requirements for presiding officers do not apply to deportation hearings. The dissent argues that the majority ignores a clear exception in § 7(a) of the APA, which exempts 'proceedings... by or before boards or other officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute.' Section 16 of the Immigration Act explicitly states that the 'examination of aliens arrested within the United States... shall be conducted by immigrant inspectors.' This specific statutory designation places immigrant inspectors squarely within the § 7(a) exception, meaning Congress intended to allow them to continue presiding over deportation hearings without imposing the APA's separate examiner system.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act by establishing that its procedural safeguards apply not only to hearings explicitly mandated by a statute but also to those implicitly required by constitutional due process. This interpretation prevented agencies from circumventing the APA's fairness requirements simply because their enabling statutes were silent on the hearing process. The ruling championed the separation of powers within administrative agencies, particularly in contexts like deportation where fundamental liberties are at stake. Although Congress later legislatively overruled this specific holding for immigration cases in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, the Court's reasoning about linking constitutional requirements to statutory interpretation remains an important principle in administrative law.
