SHAUGHNESSY V.

UNITED STATES
342 U.S. 580 (1952)

Procedural History/Facts
 Respondent was an immigrant who was born abroad and had previously lived in the United
States for more than 25 years.
 Respondent left the United States and spent 19 months in Hungary. Upon his return, he was
permanently excluded from the United States on national security grounds, pursuant to 8
C.F.R. § 175.57.
 Respondent was stranded on Ellis Island, as no other country would grant him entry.
Issue
Whether the respondent’s continued exclusion w/o a hearing constituted an unlawful detention?

Holding
No,

Reasoning (Clark)
 Power to expel or exclude aliens = fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by
Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.
 Congress expressly authorized President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering
or leaving US during periods of international tension & strife.
o AG may shut out aliens whose entry would be prejudicial to interests in US.
o May exclude w/o hearing when exclusion based on confidential information the
disclosure of which may be prejudicial to public interest.
 Whatever procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as alien denied entry
is concerned.
 AG cannot be compelled to disclose the evidence underlying his determinations in an
exclusion case  not w/in province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to
review determination of political branch of Government.
 Harborage at Ellis Island x entry into US
o R is entering alien just the same, & may be excluded if unqualified for admission
under existing immigration laws.
 Lawful resident alien x captiously be deprived of constitutional rights to procedural due
process.
 R left w/o authorization or reentry papers. So AG may lawfully exclude R w/o hearing as
authorized by emergency regulations promulgated pursuant to the Passport Act. Nor need he
disclose evidence upon which determination rests.
 R’s continued exclusion x deprive him of any statutory or constitutional right
 Exclusion proceeding grounded on danger to national security presents different
considerations; neither rationale nor statutory authority for such release exists.

Concurrence/Dissent
 Justice Black’s, w/ whom Justice Douglas concurs, Dissent ––
o R’s continued imprisonment w/o hearing violates due process.
 o Neither fed police nor fed prosecutors nor any other governmental official can put or
keep people in prison w/o accountability to courts of justice.
o R x be deprived of liberty indefinitely except as result of fair open court hearing in
which evidence is appraised by court, x prosecutor.
 Justice Jackson (& Frankfurter) Dissent ––
o No free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by
judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
 Judges of England developed writ of habeas corpus to preserve immunities
from executive restraints.
o R is deprived of liberty!
o