Carlson et al. v. Landon, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service (342 U.S. 524)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 10, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 342 U.S. 524 · 72 S. Ct. 525
- Docket
- No. 35
- Argued
- November 26, 1951
- Decided
- March 10, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1951
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Reed
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Reed (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton (wrote), Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Black (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Reed delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases present a narrow question with several related issues. May the Attorney General, as the executive head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, after taking into custody active alien Communists on warrants, charging either membership in a group that advocates the overthrow by force of this Government or inclusion in sny prohibited classes of aliens, continue them in custody without bail, at his discretion pending determination as to their deportability, under § 23 of the Internal Security Act? Differing views of the Courts of Appeals led us to grant certiorari. 342 U. S. 807, 810. I. Facts. — The four petitioners in case No. 35 were arrested under warrants, issued after the enactment of the Internal Security Act of 1950, charging each with being an alien who was a member of the Communist Party of the United States. The warrants directed that they be held in custody, pending determination of deportability. Petitions for habeas corpus were promptly filed alleging that the detention without bond was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment to the-Constitution of the United States, and that § 20 of the Immigration Act, as amended, was also unconstitutional. See note 5, supra. The allegation appears below. Respondent filed returns defending his orders of detention…
Excerpt of a 87,797-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.