Document: 349 U.S. 48 75 S.Ct. 591 99 L.Ed. 868 Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the New York, Petitioner,v.Mampriel Sequeira PEDREIRO. No. 374. Argued March 31, 1955. Decided April 25, Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Aaron L. Danzig, York City, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 After administrative hearings, respondent Pedreiro, an alien, was ordered deported under Nationality Act 1952.1 He petitioned Court Southern to review deportation order, declare it void insue a temporary injunction restraining its execution pending final district court action. In part he contended that there no legal evidence support order in violation due process had been compelled incriminate himself hearings. Relief sought only against York. The dismissed petitioner on ground either Attorney General or Commissioner indispensable party should have joined. This holding made unnecessary pass another urged dismissal, 1952 precluded judicial orders by any method except habeas corpus. Appeals reversed, rejecting both contentions Government. 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 768. doing so followed Columbia Circuit which held entered can be judicially reviewed actions declaratory relief § 10 Administrative Procedure Act.2 Rubinstein v. Brownell, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 206 449, affirmed equally divided Court, 346 929, 74 319, 97 421. But First has corpus is way such attacked. Batista Nicolls, 20. Because this conflict among circuits contention allowing other than conflicts with Heikkila Barber, 345 229, 73 603, 972, we granted certiorari, 348 882, 124. case, unlike one, dealt 1917. That provided 'final'3 long interpreted precluding type narrow right 1917 broadened 1946 authorizes agency action appropriate 'except far (1) statutes preclude * *.' construed word 'final' corpus, gave additional remedy since excepted review. carefully pointed out, however, did not consider whether same result reached 'which took effect after Heikkila's complaint filed.'4 Consequently does control case must Act. 3 Section provides 'Any person suffering wrong because action, adversely affected aggrieved within meaning relevant statute, shall entitled thereof.' And 12 'No subsequent legislation supersede modify provisions act extent do expressly.' language 'expressly' supersedes modifies expanded provide, Act, 'final.' Government contends read expressing congressional purpose give precisely thereby continue deprive deportees all We cannot accept contention. 4 Such restrictive construction finality provision present would run counter Their remove obstacles subsequently enacted like said given 'hospitable' interpretation. also referred ambiguity making It more harmony generous construe ambiguous referring procedure rather cutting off whole part. certainly keeping these Acts require go jail obtain court. 5 legislative history supports respondent's rights full order. sponsors were Representative Walter House Senator McCarran Senate. They While latter consideration House, amendment proposed liberal orders. assured needed. said: 'Now, come question decision General. means branch concerned, but last alien has. Procedures applicable.'5 With reference problem Senate 'the applicable bill.'6 argued assurances chairmen committees charge bills isolated statements sufficient refute them. agree. Our here one. 6 reject Government's kind.7 Directors are authorized regulation issue warrants deportation, designate country deported, determine when his mental physical condition requires employment accompany him. regulations purport make decisions final.8 seems highly appropriate, therefore, charged enforcement represent interest. Otherwise try might jurisdiction over Commissioner. To impose burden about completely inconsistent basic policy facilitate know necessity harsh rule. Undoubtedly defense adequately presented who supervision 7 argued, judgment alone binding immigration districts. need decide judgment. assume merits appeals kind, subject lightly disregarded authorities. Nor assumed second effort decided proceeding serious harm proceedings courts duty previous matter. even though extraordinary circumstances new matters previously adjudicated may arise proceedings, adequate reason subjecting great having witnesses Columbia, distant from home, contest deportation. former cases established indispensability parties determined practical considerations. See, e.g., Williams Fanning, 332 490, 68 188, 95. causes us conclude party. 8 Affirmed. 9 MINTON, whom REED BURTON join, dissenting. 19(a) 1917, 'final,' statute first exception Now, slightly two years later, holds available 242(b) re-enactment, almost verbatim, clause based three First, that, expressly', and, majority, establishes limited Second, believed consistent process. third, debates indicate Congress actually intended permit 11 I it, applies where legislation, words 'supersedes Act', aliens enlarged Moreover, notwithstanding significant substantive changes laws hesitate re-enactment provision, minor language, 'subsequently legislation.' then much one faced Heikkila: whether, context intended, 242(b), application As out Heikkila, contexts, used 1891, view reenactment 242 textual changes, impute intention change absent clear showing. found examining Walter, well applied statement McCarran, bill,' context, merely refer procedures aspect Moody. 98 Cong.Rec. 5778, 5779. event, Congressman course debate floor, less persuasive prepared authoritative committee report Committee bill seem law intended. preceded extensive studies structure operation law. These culminated Judiciary entitled, Systems United States, S.Rep. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 28. contains following statement, at page 629: 13 'Judicial 14 'Once warrant issued, complete. Under fifth Constitution, 'due process' may, petition writ proceeding, determines fair hearing, correctly, substantial Habeas proper legality detention custody Service. dismissal bar filing before judge.' 15 Although dated 1950, serves clarify accompanying form 'beyond existing law.' 1137, 82d Committee, using phrase 'existing law,' particularly light exclusive review, necessarily understood expressed prior report. states, 30, 'The declares prescribed sole determining deportability history, unmistakably Congress, aware ambiguous, preserve escape error 66 Stat. 163, U.S.C. 1101 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 60 243, 1009, 1009. 39 889, amended, 54 1238. 232, 604, note 4, 972. 4416. 5778. Compare Paolo Garfinkel, 200 280; Rodriguez Landon, 212 508. CFR §§ 234.1, 243.2.

Category: 1