Document: 343 U.S. 169 72 S.Ct. 591 96 L.Ed. 863 UNITED STATESv.SPECTOR. No. 443. Argued March 6, 1952. Decided April 7, Rehearing Denied May 12, See 951, 1040. Provision of Immigration Act that alien, against whom order deportation is outstanding, shall be guilty felony if he willfully fail or refuse to make timely application in good faith for travel other documents necessary his departure view emphasis on and lack requirement alien know visa requirements one more countries, contains warning sufficiently definite free statute any constitutional infirmity vagueness. 1917, § 20(a—c), as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. 156(a—c); 18 3731. Mr. Robert L. Stern, Washington, D.C., appellant. Messrs. John W. Porter, A. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., appellee. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 Section 20 39 Stat. 890, 57 553, 64 1010, U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 156, provisions designed expedite aliens. 20(a) provides Attorney General direct 'to country specified by it willing accept him into its territory'. Otherwise a series countries them impracticable, inadvisable, impossible, then which alien. 20(b) grants powers supervision over aliens orders have been outstanding than six months fixes penalties violations regulations has prescribed. 20(c) 'who depart from United States within period date such deportation, enactment Subversive Activities Control 1950, whichever later, departure, * upon conviction felony, imprisoned not ten years *.' (Italics added.) 2 The later (the italicized) provision involved here. Appellee an who came this Russia 1913. An was entered 1930 reason advocacy overthrow Government force violence. indictment returned him, two counts charged with failing refusing States. District Court sustained motion dismiss these counts. It held question unconstitutionally vague indefinite, because did specify nature nor indicate how many should application. 99 F.Supp. 778. case here appeal. 3731, 3 While statute, plain unambiguous face, may given violates due process law, we are concerned problem present case. whether face meets test certainty definiteness. We think does when viewed statutory setting. 4 scheme seems clear unambiguous. choice receive left first himself General. Once identified, mechanism effecting remains. six-month makes what 'timely' is. words 'travel departure' will, course, different meanings reference various countries. forms filled out, deposits made, number photographs furnished, information supplied will vary country. But deported known, mystery concerning vanishes. 'necessary applied deportations would normally refer lawful entrance another. satisfies making requires admission. 5 might well trap if, example, required 'timely faith' require. Though particular constant change, command remains simple intelligible. conclude contained Cf. v. Petrillo, 332 1, 67 1538, 91 1877; Jordan DeGeorge, 341 223, 71 703, 95 886. 6 Another law pressed us. must declared unconstitutional affords defendant no opportunity court tries pass validity deportation. That neither raised appellee briefed argued If had been, consider it. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 304, 330, 216, 225, 81 255. single, naked constitutionality presented, do search new questions. Rather refrain passing phase until stage reached where decision precise issue necessary. supra. 7 time tried criminal trial either jury, cf. Yakus States, 321 414, 660, 88 834; Cox 442, 68 115, 92 59, seeks tried. foreclosed opinion. reserve Reversed. 9 CLARK took part consideration 10 BLACK, dissenting. 11 only thing certain about violation terms punishable years' imprisonment. ordered Bureau subject ten-year penalty 'willfully fail(s) refuse(s) departure'. To avoid punishment guess unerring accuracy answers judge jury1 someday give following questions: (1) When 'timely'? (2) What constitutes 'good application? (3) kind 'documents' departure'? (4) apply documents? 12 Aliens living necessarily sophisticated world travelers familiar present-day red tape unwound get Congress at least when, whom, apply. If, merely report place sign collected American Department State, affirmative conduct demanded specific. my judgment, entangles snare vagueness few can escape. I Constitution 'bad' criminal.2 13 JACKSON, FRANKFURTER joins, 14 punish alien's unlawful presence reasons apparent face.1 differs subtlety but substance half century ago repeatedly recently cited approval. Wong Wing 163 228, 16 977, 41 140.2 there stricken down direct. provided Chinese person descent adjudged justice, commissioner lawfully entitled remain hard labor thereafter removed conceded competent declare remaining unlawfully could criminally punished 'if offense were established judicial trial.' page 235, 980, 140. However, said: 15 'But congress sees fit further promote policy subjecting persons infamous labor, confiscating their property, legislation, valid, provide establish guilt accused. 'No limits put courts power protect, summary methods, advent whose race habits render undesirable citizens, expel they already found way our land, therein. residence crime, deprivation liberty out sphere unless made fact trial. consistent theory government legislature should, after having defined find guilt, adjudge own agents.' 237, 981, 140.3 17 Thus prohibited purposes determination without jury illegally facts illegal satisfaction although actual before presented narrowest simplest issues, namely, Chinaman so, entry illegal. In contrast, act incriminates those entirely legal some forbideen since entry. Certainly under laws involves much trialworthy Wing's This creates crime also based consists elements: one, alien; other, willful failure leave take steps toward departure. permit illegality presence. Production administrative becomes conclusive evidence consequent duty country, inquiry correctness permitted. 19 severing court. forget while constitutionally protected stands equal footing citizen crime.4 subdivide charge submitting vital controversial decision, so prosecution citizen. And elements manner attempted, open effective subversion thought most safeguards all men's freedom. Administrative determinations liability considering exclusively civil nature, consequences connotations. doctrine, early adopted sharp dissent adhered increasing logical difficulty causes admittance, added, proceedings instituted extended.5 By carry potential consequences. 21 adjudication liable resulting exhausted served warrant authorities eject become adjudications purpose prosecution, quite principles come play. 22 procedures judgment crime. decision. All hearing officer acts both prosecutor.6 finding require proof beyond reasonable doubt mere preponderance evidence. deportability review Procedure Act, 60 243, 1009, expressly reserved McGrath Kristensen, 340 162, 169, 224, 229, 173, decided here, evidentiary attack raises record whole substantial support order. Universal Camera Corp. Labor Board, 474, 456, 456. No limitations applies cases renders deportable occurred, ceased, ago,7 statutes applicable crimes, same act, long ceased prosecution. 23 Having thus dispensed important obtaining ground proceeding, turn around use result proceeding. cannot 24 remembered proceeding exercise adjudicative, rule-making, power. heard committed grounds past conduct, and, type results rule prescribing rates otherwise guiding future conduct. 25 Experience Executive immigration me aware serious weakness program trying overcome. A successful extent state expel. But, except selected individuals us harm abroad Communist cooperate receiving expelled aliens? non-Communist feels confidence domestic security risk taking stable powerful Republic finds dangerous security? World conditions seem frustrate subversives. gain admission shipped off world. 26 join strained construction create captious trivial obstacles delays solution problem, sanction sending prison compliance procedures. afford liberties itself. 27 intimates compelled agree objection reasoning advanced counsel. abstain comment squeamishness whereby imprisons itself counsel's argument. Terminiello Chicago, 337 69 894, 93 1131. reversing examine sustained, even below overlooked rejected. Langnes Green, 282 531, 51 75 520, Watts, Watts & Co. Unione Austriaca, 248 9, 2, 63 100. lower forth limping infirmity, too shy up point sponsored counsel, though, taken, being overturned. done reargued. 'In earlier times, Rulers placed common man see them, entrapped violation. Others imposed standards impossible achievement end obnoxious ruling convicted law. ever entrapment, prescribes penitentiary nothing layman's prophesy do. *' Williams North Carolina, 325 226, 278, 65 1092, 1118, 89 1577 (dissenting opinion). Cohen Grocery Co., 255 81, 89, 298, 300, 516. My belief void unnecessary reach discussed yet seen satisfactory rejecting view. Maggio Zeitz, 333 56, 78—81, 401, 412—413, 476. pertinent portion rewritten Internal Security 156(c), 156(c) reads follows: 'Any (various named statutes) September 23, Harisiades Shaughnessy, 342 580, 586, 512; Li Sing 180 486, 495, 449, 453, 45 634; Downes Bidwell, 182 244, 283, 770, 785, 1088; Russian Volunteer Fleet 481, 489, 231, 473. supra, pages 494 634, quoted Fong Yue Ting 149 698, 730, 1016, 1028, 37 905, '(An) banishment, sense word often expulsion punishment. method enforcing return complied performance nation, acting authority, through proper departments, determined continuing reside depend. He not, therefore, deprived life, liberty, law; Constitution, securing right prohibiting unreasonable searches seizures, cruel unusual punishments, application.' went on, however, say that: 'It mention that, forbid coming borders, devolve identifying arresting executive subordinate officials, yet, 140.' thereby great distinction between basis subsequent press Fraenkel, Can Process Evade Sixth Amendment? Syracuse L.Rev. 173. 517. 587, 517, 518. Yang Sung McGrath, 339 33, 70 564, 94 1336, holding 1001 et seq., separation judging prosecuting functions, subsequently set aside specifically exempted §§ 1004, 1006, 1007 Act. Public Law 843, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 155a, 155a.

Category: 1