Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/350/179/case.php
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 10:25:09
Document Index: 364768688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 235', '§ 16', '§ 235', '§ 235', '§ 236', '§ 287', '§ 1357', '§ 287', '§ 235', '§ 235', '§ 235', '§ 235', '§ 332', '§ 1443', '§ 235', '§ 1451', '§ 340', '§ 1451', '§ 340', '§ 340', '§ 340']

The controlling issue presented by these cases is whether this section empowers an immigration officer to subpoena a naturalized citizen who is the subject of an investigation by the Service where the purpose of the investigation is to determine if good cause exists for the institution of denaturalization proceedings under § 340(a) of the Act. [Footnote 2] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In No. 35, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Philadelphia, in accordance with § 340.11 of the Service's regulation, [Footnote 3] instituted an investigation of respondent for the aforementioned purpose. In furtherance of this inquiry into the legality of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In No. 47, each petitioner was served with a subpoena issued by the officer in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Syracuse, New York. The subpoenas commanded petitioners' appearance and testimony, and required them to produce specified documents. They appeared with documents as ordered, but refused to be sworn or to testify. Thereupon an application for an order of compliance was made by the Service in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York; but the court, denying the Service's authority, refused to compel petitioners to appear and give testimony. Application of Barnes, 116 F.Supp. 464. On appeal, to the Court of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The 1952 Act in § 235(a) retained the substance of this language in § 16. But the word "alien" was changed to "person," and additional language extended the subpoena power to "any matter which is material and relevant to the enforcement of this Act and the administration of the Service." If the additional clause, following the portion "relating to the privilege of any person to enter, reenter, reside in, or pass through the United States," had merely read "and any other matter which is material and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
relevant," the doctrine of ejusdem generis would appropriately be invoked to limit the subpoena power to an investigation pertaining to questions of admission and deportation. The comprehensive addition of the clause "or concerning any matter which is material and relevant to the enforcement of this Act and the administration of the Service," precludes such narrowing reading. "Act" encompasses the full range of subjects covered by the statute. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 brought together in one statute the previously atomized subjects of immigration, nationality, and naturalization. The unqualified use of the word "Act" in § 235(a), if read as ordinary English, embraces all of these subjects, even though § 235(a) is itself in the immigration title of the statute. But "the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning. . . ." Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 331 U. S. 528-529. Throughout this statute, the word "Act" is given its full significance. The word embraces the entire statute. [Footnote 6] On the other hand, when chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
If the answer to the question merely depended upon whether, as a matter of allowable English usage, the word "witness" may fairly describe a person in the position of Minker and the Falcones, it could not be denied that the word could as readily be deemed to cover persons in their position as not. In short, the word is patently ambiguous: it can fairly be applied to anyone who gives testimony in a proceeding, although the proceeding immediately or potentially involves him as a party, or it may be restricted to the person who gives testimony in another's case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665. This may result in "loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living." Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Other examples of Congress' careful differentiation between a witness who is not the subject of an investigation and the person who is may be found in §§ 236(a), [Footnote 9] 242(b), [Footnote 10] and 336(d) [Footnote 11] of the 1952 Act. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The respondent Minker is a naturalized citizen of the United States. [Footnote 2/1] He was subpoenaed by an immigration officer to appear and give testimony as a "witness." But Minker was not to be a witness within the traditional meaning of that word, that is, one who testifies in a court proceeding or in a public quasi-judicial hearing of some kind. The immigration officer summoning Minker was not a judge or "grand jury" of any kind, nor was he at the time acting in any quasi-judicial capacity. Cf. In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. He was acting under his broad power as a law enforcement officer to follow up clues and find information that might be useful in later civil or criminal prosecutions brought against persons suspected chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
of violating the immigration and naturalization laws. See, e.g., § 287, Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. § 1357; 8 CFR §§ 287.1-287.5. The object in summoning Minker was to interrogate him in the immigration officer's private chambers to try to elicit information "relating to the possible institution of proceedings seeking the revocation of . . . [Minker's] naturalization. . . ." Information so obtained might be used under some circumstances in court to take away Minker's American citizenship or convict him of perjury or some other crime. [Footnote 2/2] Thus, the capacity in which this immigration officer was acting was precisely the same as that of a policeman, constable, sheriff, or Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who interrogates a person, perhaps himself a suspect, in connection with murder or some other crime. Apparently, Congress has never even attempted to vest FBI agents with such private inquisitorial power. Indeed, this Court has construed congressional enactments as designed to safeguard persons against compulsory questioning by law enforcement officers behind closed doors. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332; Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410. And we have frequently set aside state criminal convictions as a denial of due process of law because of coercive questioning of suspects by public prosecutors and other law enforcement officers in their official chambers. See, e.g., Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49; Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227. Yet power of the Attorney General and immigration officers to compel persons, including suspects, to appear and subject themselves chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This Court has drawn sharp and highly important distinctions between the constitutional power of Congress to bar and exclude aliens and congressional power to strip chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I think that context indicates that § 235 was designed to apply only to the examination of "witnesses" by immigration officers in relation to "entry and exclusion" of aliens and matters material and relevant to entry and exclusion. Such a reading makes the subpoena power given fit into the carefully devised pattern of Title II, which deals with aliens and immigration, not with naturalization or denaturalization. Even if limited to matters pertaining to the entry and exclusion of aliens, compulsory private examination of "witnesses" might be invalid. The broad powers here claimed by the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Limitation of the subpoena and investigatory powers in § 235 to matters relating to entry, control, and exclusion of aliens is strengthened by consideration of Title III of the Act, which covers "Nationality and Naturalization." That Title provides procedures for investigation and trial of naturalization and denaturalization cases, wholly adequate in themselves without reliance on the subpoena and examination powers of immigration officers under § 235. The naturalization and denaturalization procedures of Title III are not merely adequate, but are in a measure inconsistent with § 235 procedure. Looking first at naturalization procedure under §§ 332-336, 66 Stat. 252-258, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1443-1447, it appears that Congress with meticulous care provided a procedure for investigation of naturalization cases. These sections provide their own way for summoning and examining witnesses. Without mentioning immigration officers, the sections provide for investigations, etc., to be carried on by any employee of the Service or of the United States designated by the Attorney General. An examination under this Title is carried on by a public hearing at which an applicant for citizenship can produce his own witnesses. [Footnote 2/3] The designated chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It seems even clearer that immigration officers' powers under § 235 are not applicable in denaturalization cases. Section 340 of Title III of the Act, 66 Stat. 260, 8 U.S.C. § 1451, provides for revocation of naturalization. Responsibility for initiating such cases is placed on district attorneys "upon affidavit showing good cause therefor. . . ." Many of the grounds for denaturalization are also grounds for felony prosecutions. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that Congress expressly placed responsibility for instituting denaturalization proceedings on district attorneys, leaving them to summon persons to appear as witnesses in the traditional manner before grand juries or courts. It would have been surprising had Congress attempted to authorize the Nation's chief prosecuting officer and his subordinates to compel a citizen to appear in government private offices to chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
While I agree with the result reached by the Court, I do not think this case is comparable to those controversies that frequently rage over the scope of the investigative power in support of administrative action. Cf. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, 315 U. S. 357, with United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U. S. 632. Congress has provided a special judicial procedure which must be followed if a citizen is denaturalized. That procedure is contained in § 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. § 1451. It provides for canceling a certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was procured "by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation." § 340(a). Suit may be brought by the United States Attorney in the District Court "upon affidavit showing good cause." Id. The citizen whose citizenship is challenged has 60 days "in which to make answers to the petition of the United States." § 340(b). There is no pretrial administrative procedure provided in the section governing denaturalization. One can search § 340 in vain for any suggestion that the judicial procedure is supplemented by a pretrial procedure. So to hold would make the 60-day period for answer "empty words," as Judge Foley ruled in Application of Barnes, 116 F.Supp. 464, 469. As Judge Hastie, writing for the court below in the Minker case, said, the administrative pretrial procedure is not consistent with the safeguards which Congress has provided in the judicial proceedings. 217 F.2d 350, 352. I agree with that view and would, therefore, read chanroblesvirtualawlibrary