Draft:Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
| Harisiades v. Shaughnessy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued 5 December, 1951 Decided 10 March, 1952 | |
| Full case name | Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization |
| Citations | 342 U.S. 580 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Affirmed ruling of the lower court; The Alien Registration Act of 1940's authorization of deportation for legal residents based on Communist Party membership, even past, does not violate the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment, Due Process, nor the Ex Post Facto Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Jackson, joined by Minton, Reed, Vinson, and Burton |
| Concurrence | Frankfurter |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
| Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that the Alien Registration Act of 1940's authorization of deportation of legal resident for membership in the Communist Party, even past, did not violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, nor the constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause.[1][2][3][4]
The case was a consolidation of three similar cases, Mascitti v. McGrath, Coleman v. McGrath, and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, all brought by legal residents of the United States who were in the process of being deported under the Alien Registration Act for their participation in Communist political parties.[1]
Background
[edit]The Alien Registration Act of 1940
[edit]The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, authorizes the deportation of legal residents of the United States as a penalty for advocacy to overthrow the government under title 2. Membership of the Communist Party was at the time treated automatically as advocacy for overthrow of the government.
Dennis v. United States
[edit]The 1951 Supreme Court case Dennis v. United States upheld prosecutions under the Smith Act for mere advocacy, as opposed to direct action, to violently overthrow the government as constitutional.
First amendment
[edit]In the United States, legal residents, although not citizens, still enjoy most of the same constitutional rights. Under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, all people within the jurisdiction of the U.S. are promised equal protection under the law. But, there are some rights and privileges legal residents do not have (voting in federal elections, running for public office). The first amendment does protect non-citizens, but not in all situations. For example, people applying for residency, visas, or citizenship will be asked and investigated about their affiliations and can be denied based on what would normally be protected under the freedom of association, speech, etc.
Case facts
[edit]Harisiades
[edit]Harisiades was a Greek immigrant who came to the United States at 13 years old with his father in 1916.[1]
Mascitti
[edit]Mascitti was an Italian immigrant who came to the country in 1920 at 16 years old.[1]
Dora Coleman
[edit]Coleman was a Russian immigrant who came to the United States in 1914 at the age of 13.[1]
McGrath and Shaughnessy
[edit]J. Howard McGrath was U.S. Attorney's General from 1949 to 1952. Edward J. Shaughnessy was the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization.
District court
[edit]In 1950, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[5]
Supreme Court
[edit]The cases of Harisiades, Mascitti, and Coleman, all legal residents, were consolidated into one due to the similarities in facts. The ruling was 6-2, with Justices Douglas and Black in Dissent. Justice Tom Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Majority
[edit]Justice Robert Jackson wrote for the majority. The majority affirmed the lower court's ruling on the case, rejecting the plaintiff's request to prevent their deportations. It concluded that the law and its application in these cases did not deprive the residents of liberty without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment, constitute an overstep by Congress, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech/assembly clause, cause severe hardship as to violate the Due Process Clause, nor constitute an unconstitutional ''ex post facto'' law.[1]
Frankfurter concurrence
[edit]Justice Feliz Frankfurter wrote in Concurrence with the majority opinion.[1]
Douglas dissent
[edit]Justice William Douglas wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, with which Justice Hugo Black concurred.[1] His primary argument was that the Alien Registration Act punished past belief and ideology, not conduct, and therefore violated the deportee's freedom of speech.
Impact
[edit]Harisiades v. Shaughnessy had an impact on both immigration and first amendment law/jurisprudence.[6][7]
Citation in future cases
[edit]Harisiades v. Shaughnessy was cited in the 2018 Supreme Court case Trump v. Hawaii.[8]
See also
[edit]- Alien Registration Act of 1940
- Immigration and Naturalization Service
- First Red Scare
- Cold War
- Communist Party USA
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h "Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)". Justia Law. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
- ^ "U.S. Reports: Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)". Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
- ^ "Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
- ^ "Ex Post Facto Laws, Deportation, and Related Issues". Congress.gov. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
- ^ "Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 90 F. Supp. 431 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
- ^ "Rojas v. Moore: Immigrants and the First Amendment". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 2020-10-10. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
- ^ "Post-Dennis Prosecutions Under the Smith Act". Indiana Law Journal. 31 (1). Maurer School of Law: Indiana Univeristy – via Maurer Law Journals at Digital Repository.
- ^ "Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2024-08-15.