UNITED STATES EX REL. SCHLUETER
v.
WATKINS, DIST. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION OF U. S. FOR NEW YORK DIST.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the statute authorized the removal of an alien enemy without a court order or hearing, and that this construction is constitutional.
The relator, an alien enemy, was subject to removal under executive action. The district court agreed with the government's interpretation of the rele…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Executive Action cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The facts are fully stated in the excellent opinion of District Judge Rifkind; see United States ex rel. Schlueter v. Watkins, 67 F.Supp. 556. We agree with him that the statute authorized the making of an order of removal of an alien enemy without a court order and without a hearing of any kind, except on the issue of whether or not the relator actually is an alien enemy which was not controverted in this case. Minotto v. Bradley, N.D.Ill., 252 F. 600. 50 U.S.C.A. § 24 refers, disjunctively, to executive action pursuant to § 21 or to a court order. Court jurisdiction, conferred solely by § 23, arises only when a “complaint” is filed by a citizen. When the procedure is through executive action, the statute calls for no hearing in court or elsewhere. Early in its history, the statute was so construed by Mr. Justice Washington; Lockington v. Smith, C.C.D.Pa., 1817 15 Fed.Cas. No. 8448, p. 758.1
We agree with Judge Rifkind, and with Judge Prettyman’s opinion in Citizens Protective League v. Clark, App.D.C., 155 F. 2d 290 that the statute, thus construed, is constitutional. The President duly exer cised his statutory power in Proclamations Nos. 2526 and 2655. They did not compel a hearing which would meet the requirements of due process.
Affirmed.
See also Lockington’s Case, Brightly N. P., Pa., 269, 296; DeLacey v. United States, 9 Cir., 249 F. 2d 625, 627, L.R.A. 1918E, 1011.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1948)
-
Carlson v. Landon, 186 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1950)
-
United States ex rel. Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 200 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1952)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Citizens Protective League v. Clark (D.D.C. 1946)