Court Opinion

ID: 9443871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:32:50.335942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:37.976400
License: Public Domain

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)’.
The majority opinion holds that upon the present record the Attorney General has no authority to arrest Rubinstein while judicial review is pending and that an arrest would be a clear abuse of discretion. They conclude that the “question of detention must be decided in accordance with the principles applicable in habeas corpus proceedings.” They remand the case for further proceedings, with directions to issue a preliminary injunction against the arrest of Rubinstein unless adequate reasons are shown.
It seems to me confusing, if not misleading, to involve the question of a preliminary injunction with the principles of habeas corpus. The District Court’s authority to grant the injunction rests upon its general powers to preserve pendente lite its jurisdiction over the case or prevent irreparable injury. If I thought the present situation required a preliminary injunction I would put its issuance upon those grounds. However, I am convinced that there is no present need for such action. Therefore, in my opinion, the injunction directed by the majority is an unwarranted encroachment upon and interference with the authority and responsibility of the Attorney General. The practical effect of the injunction is to strip the Attorney General, during the period of judicial review, of his statutory authority to control and supervise an alien1 who has been ordered deported, although, obviously, control and supervision are more essential after the order than before. As Judge *457Fahy points out in dissenting from the temporary restraining order of January 26, 1953 (J.A. 57), under section 242(c) the Attorney General is authorized, when proceedings have progressed to a final order of deportation, to detain the alien, release him on bond in an amount and containing such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe or release him on such other conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe; also the warrant under which the Attorney General now allegedly seeks to apprehend and detain Rubinstein does not exhaust that official’s discretion under the statute.2 It is significant too that although sections 242(a) and 242(c) seem to recognize that an order of deportation may be judicially reviewed, there is nothing to suggest any power in the court to interfere with the Attorney General’s authority to supervise and control during the period of court review. This, I think, clearly implies that the power remains with the Attorney General. Doubtless, arbitrary arrest or detention by him could be challenged by habeas corpus, a speedy and simple remedy quite in contrast to the time-consuming procedure here, but so far there is no detention. Nor do I think the many allegations in the unsworn complaint and in the attorney’s supporting affidavit, abounding in hearsay, inference and conjecture, justify any reasonable apprehension of arbitrary or abusive action.
As I view the matter, the critical question now is whether pending a final determination of the case a sufficient showing has been made to warrant an injunction against Rubinstein being taken into custody or detained by the Attorney General. I think not. Although it is charged that the deportation proceedings arc lacking in due process and the deportation order is invalid, there is no substantial support for that position, unless it be that the crime of which Rubinstein was convicted did not involve moral turpitude. If it did, then under the applicable statute 3 it became the duty of the Attorney General, upon his warrant, to take Rubinstein into custody and deport him. Admittedly the deportation order is grounded upon Rubinstein’s, conviction, April 23, 1947, on five counts of an indictment for knowingly making false statements, and conspiring so to do, to avoid the draft, in violation of Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, § 11, 54 Start 894, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 311, for which he served concurrent sentences of two years and six months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Rubinstein, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 249, certiorari denied, Foster v. U. S., 1948, 333 U.S. 868, 68 S.Ct. 791, 92 L.Ed. 1146. I do not doubt that these crimes involve moral turpitude. In essence they do not differ from the crime of perjury and subornation of perjury, which clearly do involve that element. United Slates ex rel. Boraca v. Schlotfeldt, 7 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 106; United States ex rel. Karpay v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 792, cert. denied, 1934, 293 U.S. 573, 55 S.Ct. 85, 79 L.Ed. 671; Masaichi Ono v. Carr, 9 Cir., 1932, 56 F.2d 772. Regardless of all else, the deportation order is supported by the indisputable facts of the criminal conviction and imprisonment, established in the deportation proceedings, and the necessary legal conclusion, as I believe, that the crimes did involve moral turpitude. I therefore do not think any substantial question is presented to raise a reasonable belief that the plaintiff will prevail upon a filial hearing. Accordingly a preliminary injunction or stay of any kind should be denied. Hall Signal Co. v. General Ry. Signal Co., 2 Cir., 1907, 153 F. 907; Zugsmith v. Davis, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 108 F. Supp. 913; United States v. Libby, McNeill & Libby, D.C.D.Alaska 1951, 98 F.Supp. 601; Atlantic & Gulf/West Coast v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 90 F.Supp. 554. See also Public Serv. Comm. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 1933, 289 U.S. 67, 70, 53 S.Ct. 514, 77 L.Ed. 1036, 1038; Mass. State Grange v. Benton, 1926, 272 U.S. 525, 47 S.Ct. 189, 71 L.Ed. 387; Perry v. Perry, 1951, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 190 F.2d 601; *458Wing v. Arnall, Em.App.1952, 198 F.2d 571.
Finally, I suggest that it cannot be supposed the Attorney General will go forward with deportation pending filial determination of judicial review. It is fair to assume that the present action of that officer is designed to reconsider and adjust the terms of Rubinstein’s release in view of the deportation order. This assumption comports with assurance to the court by the Attorney General’s counsel “that he has not at this point in the administrative proceedings determined whether the alien shall be detained, released on bond or released otherwise.”

. Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 208 § 242(a) and (c), 8 U.S.O.A. § 1252(a) and (c).

. This, I think, is true whether section 242(a) or 242(c) is read as controlling upon the Attorney General during the period of judicial review.

. Act of Feb. 5, 1917, § 19, 39 Stat. 889, 8 U.S.C.A. § 153(a).