Case Name: Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Sentner; and Sentner v. Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1957-05-20
Citations: 353 U.S. 963
Docket Number: No. 728; No. 784
Parties: Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Sentner; and Sentner v. Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 353
Pages: 963–963

Head Matter:
No. 728.
No. 784.
Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Sentner; and Sentner v. Barton, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney and Beatrice Rosenberg for Barton. Sydney L. Berger for Sentner.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U. S. 194.
Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Clark dissent.
They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an opportunity to present the Government's side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242 (d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1252 (d)(3), "to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens . . . ." It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of § 242 (d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of § 242 (d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich.
Reported below: 145 F. Supp. 569.