# Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

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 residents for membership in communist parties, even past, did not violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, nor the constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause.
The case was a consolidation of three similar cases, Mascitti v. McGrath, Coleman v. McGrath, and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, all brought by long time legal residents of the United States who were in the process of being deported under the Alien Registration Act for their past participation in communist political parties.

## Background
### The Alien Registration Act of 1940

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 communist parties was at the time treated automatically as advocacy for overthrow of the government.

#### Dennis v. United States

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

In the United States, legal residents, although not citizens, still enjoy most of the same constitutional rights. Under the Fourteenth 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, such as voting in federal elections and 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.

### Ex-Post Facto Clause

Ex post facto is a legal term used to describe laws which retroactively punish actions, typically in the criminal context. Article 1, § 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting any laws which apply ex post facto, this is referred to as the constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause.

## Case facts
### Plaintiffs

Peter Harisiades was a Greek immigrant who came to the United States at 13 years old with his father in 1916. At the time of this case, he was married with two kids; his wife and kids were all American citizens. He joined the Communist Party USA (then the Worker's Party) in 1925 and was kicked out of the organization in 1939 as a part of the party's attempt to protect its non-citizen members, whose membership put them in danger of deportation. A warrant was issued for his deportation on December 16, 1948. Harisiades was represented at the Supreme Court by Carol Weiss King.
Luigi Mascitti was an Italian immigrant who came to the country in 1920 at 16 years old. At the time of the case, he was married to a fellow legal resident and had one American-born child. Between 1923 and 1929, he was a member of the Communist Party or its youth wing.
Dora Coleman was a Russian immigrant who came to the United States in 1914 at the age of 13. At the time of the case, she was married to an American citizen and had three American-born children. She was represented by David Rein.
All plaintiffs were members of the parties in question prior to the passing of the Alien Registration Act in 1940.

### McGrath and Shaughnessy

J. Howard McGrath was U.S. Attorney's General from 1949 to 1952. Edward J. Shaughnessy was the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization (INS).

## District Court

Harisiades sued to review the proceedings which lead to the issuance of a warrant of deportation against him. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy on April 4, 1950; District Judge Leibell sided with Shaughnessy and the INS and denied all of Harisiades' motions. Irving H. Saypol, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, acted as attorney for respondent.

## Supreme Court

The cases of Harisiades, Mascitti, and Coleman 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

Justice Robert H. 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.
The court held that because deportation is classified as a civil penalty, as opposed to a criminal one, it is not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause, describing it as "simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want".
Jackson also found immigration related-legislation mostly immune from substantive due process, describing it as "so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference."

### Frankfurter concurrence

Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in concurrence with the majority opinion. His opinion focused on Congress holding the primary responsibility on matters relating to naturalization.

### Douglas dissent

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, with which Justice Hugo Black concurred. 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.

### Legacy and impact

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy had an impact on both immigration and First Amendment law.
The case was highlighted after the March 2025 detention of Mahmoud Khalil during the second Trump administration's broader crackdown on immigrants, with the Algemeiner Journal and Center for Immigration Studies pointing to it as precedent supporting the actions of the government and Nadine Strossen using it as an example of these situations' legal complexity.