Court Opinion

ID: 9425025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:13:27.480938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:53.360717
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
Under The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, rendered in 1889, there could be no doubt but that Congress would have the power to exclude any class of aliens from these shores. The accent at the time was on race. Mr. Justice Field, writing for the Court, said: “If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects.” Id., at 606.
An ideological test, not a racial one, is used here. But neither, in my view, is permissible, as I have indicated on other occasions.1 Yet a narrower question is raised here. Under the present Act aliens who advocate or teach “the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism” are ineligible to receive *771visas “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Act.”2 The “except” provision is contained in another part of the same section3 and states that an inadmissible alien “may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer” be admitted “temporarily despite his inadmissibility.”
Dr. Ernest Mandel, who is described as “an orthodox Marxist of the Trotskyist school,” has been admitted to this country twice before — once as a working journalist in 1962 and once as a lecturer in 1968. The present case involves his third application, made in 1969, to attend a conference at Stanford University on Technology and the Third World. He was also invited to attend other conferences, one at MIT, and to address several universities, Princeton, Amherst, the New School, Columbia, and Yassar. This time the Department of Justice refused to grant a waiver recommended by the State Department; and it claims that it need not state its reasons, that the power of the Attorney General is unfettered.
Dr. Mandel is not the sole complainant. Joining him are the other appellees who represent the various audiences which Dr. Mandel would be meeting were a visa to issue. While Dr. Mandel, an alien who seeks admission, has no First Amendment rights while outside the Nation, the other appellees are on a different footing. The First Amendment involves not only the right to speak and publish but also the right to hear, to learn, to know. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 143; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564.
Can the Attorney General under the broad discretion entrusted in him decide
*772that one who maintains that the earth is round can be excluded?
that no one who believes in the Darwinian theory shall be admitted?
that those who promote a Rule of Law to settle international differences rather than a Rule of Force may be barred?
that a genetic biologist who lectures on the way to create life by one sex alone is beyond the pale?
that an exponent of plate tectonics can be barred?
that one should be excluded who taught that Jesus when he arose from the Sepulcher, went east (not up) and became a teacher at Hemis Monastery in the Himalayas?
I put the issue that bluntly because national security is not involved. Nor is the infiltration of saboteurs. The Attorney General stands astride our international terminals that bring people here to bar those whose ideas are not acceptable to him. Even assuming, arguendo, that those on the outside seeking admission have no standing to complain, those who hope to benefit from the traveler's lectures do.
Thought control is not within the competence of any branch of government. Those who live here may need exposure to the ideas of people of many faiths and many creeds to further their education. We should construe .the Act generously by that First Amendment standard, saying that once the State Department has concluded that our foreign relations permit or require the admission of a foreign traveler, the Attorney General is left only problems of national security, importation of heroin, or other like matters within his competence.
We should assume that where propagation of ideas is permissible as being within our constitutional framework, the Congress did not undertake to make the Attorney General a censor. For as stated by Justice *773Jackson in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 545 (concurring), “[t]he very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.”
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (which overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357), we held that the First Amendment does not permit a State “to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Id., at 447. That case involved propagation of the views of the Ku Klux Klan. The present case involves teaching the communist creed.4 But, as we held in Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 297-298:
“[T]he mere abstract teaching of Communist theory, including the teaching of the moral pro*774priety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”
As a matter of statutory construction, I conclude that Congress never undertook to entrust the Attorney General with the discretion to pick and choose among the ideological offerings which alien lecturers tender from our platforms, allowing those palatable to him and disallowing others.5 The discretion entrusted to him concerns matters commonly within the competence of the Department of Justice — national security, importation of drugs, and the like.
I would affirm the judgment of the three-judge District Court.

 See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 598 (dissenting opinion); Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522, 533 (dissenting opinion).

 § 212 (a) (28) (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 185, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (28) (G) (v).

 § 212 (d) (3) (A), 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (d) (3) (A).

 The Court recognizes the legitimacy of appellees’ First Amendment claim, ante, at 762-765. It argues, however, that inasmuch as the Attorney General gave a “facially legitimate añd bona fide” reason to refuse Dr. Mandel a waiver of ineligibility, the Court should not “look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against [appellees’] First Amendment interests . . . .” First, so far as the record reveals, there is absolutely no support for the Attorney General’s claim that Dr. Mandel consciously abused his visa privileges in 1968. Indeed, the State Department itself concedes that he “ivas apparently not informed [in 1962 and 1968'] that a visa was issued only after obtaining a waiver of ineligibility and therefore may not have been aware of the conditions and limitations attached to the visa issuance.” (Emphasis supplied.) App. 22. Second, the activities which the Attorney General labeled “flagrant abuses” of Dr. Mandel’s opportunity to speak in the United States appear merely to have been his speaking at more universities than his visa application indicated. Indeed, he spoke at more than *77430 universities in the United States and Canada, including Harvard, the University of California at Berkeley, Swarthmore, Notre Dame, Antioch, Michigan, three appearances at Columbia, two at the University of Pennsylvania, and the keynote address at the 1968 Socialist Scholars Conference held at Rutgers. App. 25. It would be difficult to invent a more trivial reason for denying the academic community the chance to exchange views with an internationally respected scholar.

 As indicated in S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 12, the discretion vested in the Attorney General was to be exercised “for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public interest.” Ideological controls are not congenial to our First Amendent traditions and therefore should not be inferred.