Court Opinion

ID: 9421312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:57:48.620714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:29.630109
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
This is a strange case in a country dedicated by its founders to the maintenance of liberty under law. The petitioner, Cecil Reginald Jay, is being banished because he was a member of the Communist Party from 1935 to 1940. His Communist Party membership at that time did not violate any law. The Party was recognized then *363as a political organization and had candidates in many state elections. Jay’s Communist Party membership ended 10 years before such membership was made a ground for deportation by Congress. 64 Stat. 1006-1008. It is for this past Communist membership, wholly legal when it existed, that Jay has been ordered deported.1
Even though an alien has been found to be deportable, Congress has provided a procedure which he can invoke to have his deportation suspended. 66 Stat. 163, 214-216, 8 U. S. C. §§ 1254 (a) (5), 1254 (c). He is entitled to suspension "in the discretion” of the Attorney General if he “proves” that during the preceding 10 years he has been a person of good moral character and if deportation would result in exceptional and unusual hardship. The language of the statute plainly shows that an alien must be given an opportunity to “prove” these things if he can. This of course means that he must have a full and fair hearing. Jay asked to be allowed to give such proof and in fact proved his case to the complete satisfaction of the hearing officer who passed on it. But the hearing officer “after considering confidential information” refused to suspend deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Jay’s appeal.
*364Jay is now 65 years of age. He came to this country from England for permanent residence in 1914. He has remained here ever since except for time he served in the army of our ally Canada during the First World War. Despite the Government’s far-flung investigative network it has not been able to dig up one single incident of misconduct on the part of Jay during his entire 65 years which it is willing to produce in court.2 That Jay is a person of good moral character and that his enforced exile from this country will work an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” have been found by the hearing officer.
I agree with The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas that the Attorney General’s regulation authorizing Jay and others like him to be deported upon alleged anonymous information should be held invalid as beyond the statutory power of the Attorney General. But a majority of the Court holds otherwise. This makes it necessary to consider the constitutionality of the use of anonymous information for such a purpose. In Footnote 21 of its opinion the Court states, somewhat as an aside, that “the constitutionality of § 244 as herein interpreted gives us no difficulty.” In this easy fashion the Court disposes of a challenge to the power of Congress to banish people *365on information allegedly given federal officers by persons whose names are not revealed and whose statements (if made) are shrouded in the darkness which surrounds “confidential information.”
What is meant by “confidential information”? According to officers of the Immigration Service it may be “merely information we received off the street”; or “what might be termed as hearsay evidence, which could not be gotten into the record . . ; or “information from persons who were in a position to give us the information that might be detrimental to the interests of the Service to disclose that person’s name . . .”; or “such things, perhaps, as income-tax returns, or maybe a witness who didn’t want to be disclosed, or where it might endanger their life, or something of that kind . ...”3 No nation can remain true to the ideal of liberty under law and at the same time permit people to have their homes destroyed and their lives blasted by the slurs of unseen and unsworn informers. There is no possible way to contest the truthfulness of anonymous accusations. The supposed accuser can neither be identified nor interrogated. He may be the most worthless and irresponsible character in the community. What he said may be wholly malicious, untrue, unreliable, or inaccurately reported. In a court of law the triers of fact could not even listen to such gossip, much less decide the most trifling issue on it.
The Court today is not content with allowing exile on the basis of anonymous gossip. It holds that the hearing officer who condemned Jay could act in his “unfettered discretion,” subject only to review by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Of course the Court refers to the *366Attorney General’s “unfettered discretion,” but participation of the Attorney General in this case is a fiction. The Court concedes in Note 8 of its opinion that the Attorney General does not personally exercise discretion in these cases. Therefore, the “unfettered discretion” to which the Court subjects persons like Jay is the unfettered discretion of inquiry officers of the Immigration Service, reviewable only by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under our system of government there should be no way to subject the life and freedom of one individual to the “unfettered” or, more accurately, the “arbitrary” power of another. Article III of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights intend that people4 shall not have valuable rights and privileges taken away from them by government unless the deprivation occurs after some kind of court proceeding where witnesses can be confronted and questioned and where the public can know that the rights of individuals are being protected.
Unfortunately, this case is not the first one in recent years where arbitrary power has been approved and where anonymous information has been used to take away vital rights and privileges of people.5 The Court disposes of what has been done to Jay to its satisfaction by saying that his right to stay here if he proves he is a good *367citizen "comes as an act of grace,” like “probation or suspension of criminal sentence.” But probation and suspension of criminal sentence come only after conviction of crime. Cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241. Here the Government with all of its resources has not been able to prove that Jay ever committed a crime of any kind. And Congress provided the suspension procedure so that one in Jay’s situation could get special relief if he proved his good moral character. Viewed realistically this suspension procedure is an integral part of the process of deciding who shall be deported.
No amount of legal reasoning by the Court and no rationalization that can be devised can disguise the fact that the use of anonymous information to banish people is not consistent with the principles of a free country. Unfortunately there are some who think that the way to save freedom in this country is to adopt the techniques of tyranny. One technique which is always used to maintain absolute power in totalitarian governments is the use of anonymous information by government against those who are obnoxious to the rulers.6 In connection with another case like this7 I referred to a statement made by the Roman Emperor Trajan to Pliny the Younger around the end of the First Century. Rome *368at that time was prosecuting the Christians for alleged subversive activities. Pliny expressed his doubts to Trajan as to the best method of handling the prosecutions. He wrote Trajan, “An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. . . .” Trajan replied, “You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. . . . Anonymous informations ought not to be received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.” 8
It was also foreign to the brave spirit of the American age that gave birth to our constitutional system of courts with their comprehensive safeguards for fair public trials. In those courts a defendant’s fate is to be determined by independent judges and juries who hear evidence given by witnesses in their presence and in the presence of the accused.9 But this case shows how far we have departed from the carefully conceived plan to safeguard individual liberty. Although the Court today pays lip service to judicial review, a hearing officer’s condemnation of Jay is held final and unreviewable. His condemnation is in open defiance of all the public testimony given, and rests exclusively on “confidential information” he claims to have received from unrevealed sources. Unfortunately this condemnation of Jay on anonymous information is not unusual — it manifests the popular fashion in these days of fear. Legal rationalizations10 have been con*369trived to shift trials from constitutional courts to temporary removable appointees like the hearing officer who decided against Jay.11 And when an accused rises to defend himself before such an officer he is met by a statement that “We have evidence that you are guilty of something, but we cannot tell you what, nor who gave us the evidence.” If, taking the Bill of Rights seriously, he complains, he is met by the rather impatient rejoinder that the Government’s safety would be jeopardized by according him the kind of trial the Constitution commands.12 But the core of our constitutional system is *370that individual liberty must never be taken away by shortcuts, that fair trials in independent courts must never be dispensed with. That system is in grave danger. This case emphasizes that fact. Prosecution of any sort on anonymous information is still too dangerous, just as it was when Trajan rejected it nearly two thousand years ago. Those who prize liberty would do well to ponder this.

 The constitutionality of this Act authorizing deportation for conduct legal when it occurred was sustained in Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522. Mr. Justice Douglas and I dissented. On April 6,1953, President Eisenhower sent a message to Senator Arthur V. Watkins calling attention to the harshness of the immigration laws which were used here to deport Jay. In listing “injustices” claimed to exist in the legislation President Eisenhower referred to:
“Deportation provisions that permit an alien to be deported at any time after entry, irrespective of how long ago he was involved, after entry, in an active or [sic] affiliation designated as ‘subversive.’ Such alien is now subject to deportation even if his prior affiliation was terminated many years ago and he has since conducted himself as a model American.” 99 Cong. Rec. 4321.

 Included in the testimony for Jay was an affidavit by the Assistant Executive Director for the Seattle Housing Authority which employed him, stating:
“Mr. Jay was rated as one of the most conscientious and faithful employees of this Authority. His honesty was unquestioned. His interest in his work extended beyond the normal working hours and he was always willing to accept additional responsibilities without additional compensation. He was forthright in his opinions. His general moral character is evidenced by the fact that during his entire period of employment not one complaint was ever received from either the tenants or his fellow employees as to his relationships with people.”

 Hearings before House Subcommittee on Legal and Monetary Affairs of the Committee on Government Operations: Practices and Procedures of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in Deportation Proceedings, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 18, 67, 138, 207.

 The fact that Jay is an alien should not mean that he is outside the protection of the Constitution. As Mr. Justice Brewer said in dealing with whether aliens are protected by the first 10 Amendments: “It is worthy of notice that in them the word ‘citizen’ is not found. In some of them the descriptive word is ‘people,’ but in the Fifth it is broader, and the word is ‘person,’ and in the Sixth it is the ‘accused,’ while in the Third, Seventh, and Eighth there is no limitation as to the beneficiaries suggested by any descriptive word.” Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 739 (dissenting).

 See, e. g., Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160; United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537; Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123; Carlson v. London, 342 U. S. 524.

 Recently Nikita Khrushchev is reported to have told the 20th Communist Party Congress that Stalin violated:
“. . . all existing norms of morality and of Soviet laws.
“Arbitrary behavior by one person encouraged and permitted arbitrariness in others. Mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, execution without trial and without normal investigation created conditions of insecurity, fear and even desperation.
“. . . honest Communists were slandered, accusations against them were fabricated, and revolutionary legality was gravely undermined.” Department of State Press Release, June 4, 1956, pp. 8-9, 14; Washington Post & Times Herald, June 6, 1956, p. 11, cols. 1, 6.

 Carlson v. Landon, 342 U. S. 524, 552 (dissenting opinion).

 9 Harvard Classics 426-428.

 See United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11; In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257. Cf. Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U. S. 470; Reid v. Covert, 351 U. S. 487.

 As Mr. Justice Bradley said for the Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635, “[Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches *369and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. . . .” See also dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brewer in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 744.

 See Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Accardi, 349 U. S. 280, 290-293 (dissenting); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17.

 The destruction of judicial protections for fair and open determinations of guilt is an essential to maintenance of dictatorships. After the murderous purge of hundreds of German citizens Hitler said: “If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice for conviction of the offenders, then all that I can say to him is this: in this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme Justiciar of the German people!
“. . . If people bring against me the objection that only a judicial procedure could precisely weigh the measure of the guilt and of its expiation, then against this view I lodge my most solemn protest. He who rises against Germany is a traitor to his country: and the traitor to his country is not to be punished according to the range and the extent of his act, but according to the purpose which that act has revealed.” Speech delivered by Hitler in the Reichstag on 13 July 1934, 1 Hitler’s Speeches (Baynes ed. 1942), 321-323.
The Russian purges of the 1930’s are reported to have been gov*370erned by a directive initiated by Stalin, which stated:
“I. Investigative agencies are directed to speed up the cases of those accused of the preparation or execution of acts of terror.
“II. Judicial organs are directed not to hold up the execution of death sentences pertaining to crimes of this category in order to consider the possibility of pardon, because the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee USSR does not consider as possible the receiving of petitions of this sort.
“III. The organs of the Commissariat of Internal Affairs are directed to execute the death sentences against criminals of the above-mentioned category immediately after the passage of sentences.” Department of State Press Release, June 4, 1956, p. 15; Washington Post & Times Herald, June 6, 1956, p. 11, cols. 7-8.