Document: 347 U.S. 222 74 S.Ct. 447 98 L.Ed. 650 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 37, et al.v.BOYD, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service. No. 195. Argued Jan. 6, 1954. Decided March 8, Mr. A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants. Charles Gordon, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., appellee. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is an action by Local 37 International Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union several its alien members to enjoin Director at Seattle from so construing § 212(d)(7) Nationality Act 1952* as treat aliens domiciled in continental United States returning temporary work Alaska if they were entering first time. Declaratory relief same effect also sought. Since petitioners asserted alternative that such a construction challenged statute would be unconstitutional, three-judge district court was convened. The case came before it on stipulated facts issues law, which appeared union has over three thousand who every summer herring salmon canneries Alaska, some these are aliens, workers going 1953 canning season excluded their return, 'contract property rights (would) jeopardized forfeited.' Court entertained suit but dismissed merits. 111 F.Supp. 802. In our order October 12, 1953, we postponed question jurisdiction hearing 346 804, 43. 2 On this appeal, appellee contends should not have reached statutory constitutional questions want 'case or controversy,' lack standing union's part bring action, because Attorney General indispensable party, habeas corpus exclusive method judicial inquiry deportation cases. objection conclusive, there end matter. 3 Appellants asked rule sanctions had been set motion against individuals whose behalf sought, occasion doing arisen, applied them future contingency arise. That lawsuit enforce right; endeavor obtain court's assurance does govern hypothetical situations may make applicable. Determination scope constitutionality legislation advance immediate adverse context concrete involves too remote abstract proper exercise function. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 75, 67 556, 91 754; see Muskrat States, 219 346, 31 250, 55 246, Alabama State Federation Labor McAdory, 325 450, 65 1384, 89 1725. do record us controversy appropriate adjudication, judgment must vacated, with directions dismiss complaint. It ordered. 4 Judgment vacated 5 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS concurs, dissenting. 6 looks me like very kind controversy' courts decide. With principles law relied majority dismissing case, I am disagreement. Of course federal pass meaning statutes might thought mere 'hypothetical situations. * *' Nor entertain challenges persons upon effects 'too function.' But read shows absolutely essential save large group wage earners brought irreparable harm due alleged lawless enforcement statute. My view makes necessary out little more detail than appear Court's opinion. 7 Every appellant go west coast under collective-bargaining agreements. As approached looked forward employment. A troublesome arose, however, account 1952, 66 Stat. 182. Section new language given one provides all seeking admission even those previously accepted permanent residents, shall examined foreign country excluding any many grounds applicable generally. created acute problem numerous lawful since generally can reasons justify deporting lawfully residing here. insisted another construction. They denied Congress intended require forfeit right live no reason except went territory engage authorized contract. defendant immigration officer announced interpretation wrong subject examination exclusion. controversy. 8 test apply exclusion filed two officers themselves residents. True, begun season. only admitted official feared. here he done precisely that. All cannery actually subjected wearisome routine procedure though never lived And evidently about ever return homes could legally stayed California Washington instead important American industry. 9 Thus threatened injury dismisses 'remote' 'hypothetical' come about. For honest employment lose home once afforded them. strange penalty put productive work. Maybe what meant passing 212(d)(7). maybe times held constitutional. so, challenge hits hardest frivolous decide? damages, others, cases tried. section states exclusionary provisions 212(a) shall, exceptions relevant, 'be leave Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands seeks enter *.' U.S.C. 1182(d) (7), U.S.C.A. 1182(d)(7).

Category: 1