264 U.S. 134 (1924), 148, United States ex Rel. Mensevich v. Tod

Docket Nº:No. 148
Citation:264 U.S. 134, 44 S.Ct. 282, 68 L.Ed. 591
Party Name:United States ex Rel. Mensevich v. Tod
Case Date:February 18, 1924
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 134

264 U.S. 134 (1924)

44 S.Ct. 282, 68 L.Ed. 591

United States ex Rel. Mensevich

v.

Tod

No. 148

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 18, 1924

Argued January 2, 1924

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

1. An appeal brought here properly upon a constitutional proposition which is subsequently denied in another case will not be dismissed for that reason, but other questions raised will be considered. P. 135.

2. In the provision of the Immigration Act, § 20, for the deportation of aliens to the country whence they came, "country" means the

Page 135

state which, at the time of deportation, includes the place from which an alien came. P. 136.

3. The validity of a detention questioned by a petition for habeas corpus is to be determined by the condition existing at the time of the final decision thereon. Id.

Affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a petition for habeas corpus.

BRANDEIS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1911, Mensevich emigrated from Russia to the United States. In 1921, he was arrested in deportation proceedings as an alien in this country in violation of law. Act Oct. 16, 1918, c. 186, §§ 1 and 2, 40 Stat. 1012, as amended by Act June 5, 1920, c. 251, 41 Stat. 1008. After a hearing, the warrant for deportation issued. Then this petition for a writ of habeas corpus was brought in the federal court. It was dismissed without opinion; the relator was remanded to the custody of the commissioner of immigration for the port of New York, and a stay was granted pending this appeal. The case is here under § 238 of the Judicial Code, the claim being that Mensevich was denied rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

The government moved under Rule 6 of this Court to dismiss, insisting that the appeal does not present a substantial question. Consideration of the motion was postponed until the hearing on the merits. The grounds on which the detention was challenged in the petition are the same as those which were held to be unsound in

Page 136

United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149. That decision was not rendered until after this appeal was taken. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied. Sugarman v. United States, 249 U.S. 182, 183. In the traverse to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP