Heikkila v. Barber, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. (345 U.S. 229)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 16, 1953 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 345 U.S. 229 · 73 S. Ct. 603
- Docket
- No. 426
- Argued
- February 4, 1953
- Decided
- March 16, 1953
- Term
- October Term 1952
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Clark
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Douglas, Justice Reed
- Dissenting
- Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Black
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. Heikkila is an alien whose deportation has been ordered by the Attorney General. He began this action against the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service by a complaint seeking a “review of agency action” as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. His main substantive claim is that § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1006, upon which the order was based, and which makes Communist Party membership per se ground for deportation, is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court convened under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2282, 2284, dismissed the complaint without opinion. Together with the constitutional question, this appeal presents two important procedural questions: whether the validity of deportation orders may be tested by some procedure other than habeas corpus and, if so, whether the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization is an indispensable party to the action. It is clear that prior to the Administrative Procedure Act habeas corpus was the only remedy by which deportation orders could be challenged in the courts. The courts have consistently rejected attempts to use injunctions, declaratory judgments and other types of relief for this purpose. Accordingly, in asserting the availability of judicial review of the type sought here, appellant relies primarily on § 10 of the…
Excerpt of a 22,100-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.