CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-RIGHT OF ALIEN ENEMY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DEPORTATION PROCEEDING
Griffin, Robert P.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 1950Johnson v. Eisentrager U.S.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Petitioner, a German alien enemy, had been arrested and interned during the war by virtue of broad summary powers granted the Chief Executive by the Alien Enemy Act of 1798. The act subjects alien enemies to apprehension, detention, and deportation upon order of the President "whenever there is a declared war . . . . " Under authority of the act, the President, on July 14, 1945, ordered the removal of all alien enemies "who shall be deemed by the Attorney General to be dangerous to the public peace . . . . " Though the act makes no provision for a hearing, the petitioner was heard before alien and repatriation boards, and on January 18, 1946, five months after cessation of actual hostilities, the Attorney General ordered the petitioner's removal from the country.
Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus, wherein he questioned the validity of the act and complained that he had not had a fair hearing, was denied in the district court and the circuit court of appeals. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed. An alien enemy whose deportation is ordered under authority of the act is not entitled to have any court determine whether he had a fair hearing. Four justices dissented.
Ludecke v. Watkins, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 1429.